Corruption Good

Corruption = GrowthCorruption leads to growth in 3rd world countries Heckelman & Powell 2008 Heckelman is a professor of economics at Wake Forest University.Powell was an Associate Professor of Economics at Suffolk University and an Assistant Professor of Economics at San Jos State University. [Jac C. Heckelman & Benjamin Powell, Corruption and the Institutional Environment for Growth Department of Economics Suffolk University, August 2008, http://192.138.214.118/RePEc/docs/wpaper/2008-6.pdf pg 1] Despite these widely held beliefs, some economists going back to at least Leff (1964) and Huntington (1968) believe that corruption can enhance growth by allowing individuals to pay bribes in order to circumvent inefficient rules and bureaucratic delays. Simply put, in much of the third world, corruption is needed to get things done. If corruption is reduced without corresponding changes to eliminate inefficient rules, business activity and economic growth may slow. If a first best solution of good rules is unavailable then corruption that avoids some of the restrictions created by bad rules becomes a second best solution and an alternative path to growth.

Despite negative econ development corruption is positive Mironov 2005 He earned a bachelor's degree in Economics at Novosibirsk State University, amaster's degree in Economics at New Economic School (Moscow), and a PhD in Finance at Chicago GSB in 2008. [Maxim Mironov, Bad Corruption, Good Corruption and Growth, Graduate School of Business University of Chicago, November 14, 2005, http://mironov.fm/research/corruption.pdf, pg 1-2] There are several potential explanations for this empirical fact. One is that corruption helps to grease the wheels in a country with poor institutions, allowing individuals to overcome burdensome red tape. Another, suggested by Guriev (2004), is that even though corruption reduces red tape, officials who expect bribes tend to set ex-ante levels of red tape above the socially optimal level. Therefore, one might find positive effect of corruption controlling for institution quality, even if the total effect of corruption on economic development is negative. Yet another possible explanation is that economic growth might feed corruption by providing additional demand for bureaucrat services. My empirical results are consistent with all these explanations and I cannot distinguish between these hypotheses using these data.]

Empirics prove; Corruption helps the economy Zotin 1/30 *Aleksander Zotin, IS THERE SUCH A THING AS GOOD CORRUPTION? KOMMERSANT/Worldcrunch, 2013-01-30, http://www.worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/is-there-such-a-thing-as-good-corruption/economic-growth-transparency-congo-kleptocracy/c7s10772/] First of all, the size. A 3% drain on the economy is not the same as a 25% one. But size is far from the only thing that matters. The structure is also important. Good corruption is often a way to grease the wheels of cumbersome regulations, where officials speed up the decision-making process, helping business. Often that means forced political support for regimes that are undertaking painful economic

modernization. One of the important signs of good corruption is that the money stays in the country, allowing for economic growth. The American political scientist John Nye even calls this the "Switzerland factor." The less that corrupt money leaves the country (often going to Swiss bank accounts), and the more it is reinvested in the home countrys economy, the less damaging the corruption. The aim of good corruption is to create a good investment climate and improve growth in private business. One of the best examples of this good corruption was 20th century South Korea under dictator Park Chung-hee. He often forced large companies to take care of his partys needs, and rewarded those companies loyalty with low-interest loans and business preferences. He used the money to secure his partys hold on power rather than just for his own personal gain, and nearly all of the money stayed in the country. At the same time, he cracked down on middle-level corruption investigating large numbers of mid-level officials and thus creating a good investment climate that forced the government to color inside the lines. Although he ruled as a dictator, Park held his government to strict standards, and didnt use the corruption strictly for personal enrichment.

Corruption = Mexican Growth

Anti-Corruption Focus in Mexico is hurting econ growth Cattan & Martin 2010 - Cattan is a reporter for Bloomberg News in Mexico City. Martin is a reporterfor the Chicago Tribune. *Nacha Cattan & Eric Martin, Pena Nieto Anti-Corruption Focus Slows Mexican Economy Overhaul Bloomberg, Jul 25, 2012, http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70159347&trkid=6081399] Pena Nieto Anti-Corruption Focus Slows Mexican Economy Overhaul; Two weeks after Enrique Pena Nieto won Mexicos July 1 presidential election, he unveiled his most pressing priorities for action. The contrast with his pre- election agenda was unmistakable. His first order of business when Congress convenes in September will be three bills to tackle corruption and increase transparency in government and media, Pena Nieto wrote in a July 16 column in Reforma newspaper. Proposals to revamp the economy will be offered in their own time, he said, without specifying when that will be. This marks a change in emphasis from the campaign, when Pena Nieto pledged to open the state-run oil industry to outside investment -- a measure he called his signature issue -- and overhaul tax and labor codes as soon as possible, said Jorge Chabat at the Center for Economic Research and Teaching. I dont think any of these economic reforms will be passed between now and December because the post-electoral atmosphere wont permit it, said Chabat, a political science professor at the Mexico City-based university. Its important to pass these laws in the beginning, because its when presidents have the most power. Pena Nietos decision to push first for an anti-corruption panel, transparency requirements for local authorities and a citizen watchdog to oversee government spending on the media came amid protests that have brought thousands onto the streets of Mexico City each weekend since the election. Many are supporters of runner-up Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, 58, who has challenged the results, alleging that local officials of the winners Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, embezzled public funds to buy millions of votes.

Corruption promotes societal cooperation Ubeda and Duez, 2010---Profesors from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Harvard---[Francisco Ubeda and EdgarDuez, Researcher Finds Power and Corruption May Be Good For Society, Phys Org, 12-14-2010, http://phys.org/news/2010-12-powercorruption-good-society.html] They are familiar scenes: politicians bemoaning the death of family values only for extramarital affairs to be unveiled or politicians preaching financial sacrifice while their expense accounts fatten up. Moral

corruption and power asymmetries are pervasive in human societies, but as it turns out, that may not be such a bad thing. Francisco Ubeda, an evolutionary biologyprofessor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Edgar Duez of Harvard University found that power and corruption may play a role in maintaining overall societal cooperation. Using game theory, Ubeda and Duez looked at what causes individuals in society to cooperate even though those in charge display some level of corruption. They developed a model that allows individuals who are responsible for punishing noncooperators (e.g., law enforcers and government officials) to fail to cooperate themselves by acting in a corrupt manner. They also considered the possibility that these law enforcers, by virtue of their positions, are able to sidestep punishment when they are caught failing to cooperate. What they found is that the bulk of society cooperates because there are law enforcers forcing them to stay in line. People tend to cooperate because they do not want to get punished. Even if the law enforcers consider themselves above the law and behave in a corrupt way, overall societal cooperation is maintained as long as there is a small amount of power and corruption. However, if the law enforcers have too much power and corruption runs rampant, overall societal cooperation breaks down. Ubeda explained how it works: "Law enforcers often enjoy privileges that allow them to avoid the full force of the law when they breach it. Law enforcing results in the general public abiding by the law. Thus law enforcers enjoy the benefits of a lawful society and are compensated for their law enforcing by being able to

researchers concluded that power and corruption benefit society; without law enforcers, individuals have less incentive to cooperate and without power and corruption, lawdodge the law," he said. The

enforcers have less incentive to do their job. The researchers' findings have far-reaching implications. In biology, they mayhelp explain corrupt behaviors in social insects. In economics, the findings may aid in formulating policies by providing insights on how to harness corruption to benefit society. In the field of psychology, the findings provide a justification to the correlation between power and corruption observed in humans.

Venezuelan Corruption Link turn

Attempts of ridding Venezuela of corruption fail and result in more corruption; history proves Coronel 2008 He was a member of the Board of Directors of Petroleos de Venezuela from 1976-79,was president of Agrupacion Pro Calidad de Vida, and was the Venezuelan representative to Transparency International from 1996 to 2000. *By Gustavo Coronel, The Corruption of Democracy in Venezuela USA Today Magazine, March 2008, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuela] Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in December 1998 on the strength of three main promises: convening a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution and improve the state, fighting poverty and social exclusion, and eliminating corruption. Nine years later, it has become evident that the Constituent Assembly primarily was a vehicle to destroy all existing political institutions and replace them with a bureaucracy beholden to his wishes. Poverty and social exclusion remain as prominent as before, while the levels of government corruption are higher than ever.

Venezuelan Corruption = Growth

Corruption is good for the foreign market; Venezuela proves good for investors Pagano 2013 - Michael S. Pagano is the Robert J. and Mary Ellen Darretta Endowed Chair in Finance atthe Villanova School of Business. *Micheal S. Pagano, When Corruption Helps the Bottom Line Stock Exchange of Caracas, January 28, 2013, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/when-corruption-helps-the-bottom-line/] Most investors would agree that less corruption and more transparency in financial markets are good things. But in a contrarian way, a high degree of corruption in foreign markets can actually be beneficial. And that may provide an interesting counterargument to recent enforcement actions. The fact that large-scale corruption exists is not in dispute; in many foreign markets it is clearly caveat emptor. Actions by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United States are making front-page headlines almost on a weekly basis in recent years.The Justice Department and the S.E.C. recently released guidance on the corrupt practices act, a law that has become problematic for many global companies. And many other countries around the world are also following suit with newly empowered regulatory agencies. In April 2011, Britain passed the Bribery Act, a major compliance regulation, to go after corruption. Under this backdrop, Professors Pankaj K. Jain of the University of Memphis, Emre Kuvvet of Texas A&M and I set out to analyze just what effects corruption had on investment, cost of capital and market liquidity for institutional investors. We examined corruption and its effect on financial markets at the national level using data from 49 countries. Our finding that investing conditions are extremely favorable in Denmark, one of the most transparent countries, makes logical sense. What is surprising is that the most corrupt countries like Venezuela (which is at the very bottom of our list at No. 49) are actually better for investors than moderately corrupt countries like Morocco or Mexico.

Venezuelan trade is high due to corruption Pagano, 1-28-Robert J. and Mary Ellen Darretta Endowed Chair in Finance at the Villanova School of Business.*Michael S. Pagano, When Corruption Helps the Bottom Line, New York Times, 1-28-13, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/whencorruption-helps-the-bottom-line/]

Most investors would agree that less corruption and more transparency in financial markets are good things. But in a contrarian way, a high degree of corruption in foreign markets can actually be beneficial. Andthat may provide an interesting counterargument to recent enforcement actions. The fact that large-scale corruption exists is not in dispute; in many foreign markets it is clearly caveat emptor. Actions by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United States are making front-page headlines almost on a weekly basis in recent years. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. recently released guidance on the corrupt practices act, a law that has become problematic for many global companies. And many other countries around the world are also following suit with newly empowered regulatory agencies. In April 2011, Britain passed the Bribery Act, a major compliance regulation, to go after corruption. Under this backdrop, Professors Pankaj K. Jain of the University of Memphis, Emre Kuvvet of Texas A&M and I set out to analyze just what effects corruption had on investment, cost of capital and market liquidity for institutional investors. We examined corruption and its effect on financial markets at the national level using data from 49 countries. Our finding that investing conditions are extremely favorable in Denmark, one of the most transparent countries, makes logical sense. What is surprising is that the most corrupt countries

like Venezuela (which is at the very bottom of our list at No. 49) are actually better for investors than moderately corrupt countries like Morocco or Mexico. This finding points to a perverse level playing field where potential investors in these extremely corrupt countries know who is in charge and can thereby succeed and prosper. But in moderately corrupt countries, it is unclear who is in charge and how to play the game.Corruption is a result of several factors, including the increased pressure on investors and companies to compete for lucrative international business opportunities. As noted in a 2011 working paper, the benefits obtained by bribing officials or engaging in corrupt behavior can be quite tempting; it is estimated that the average return is 10 to 11 times the original bribe amount for 166 prominent cases in 20 countries. We used several tools to help us quantify some of the effects of corruption on stock prices. Some of those included the corruption perceptions index data from Transparency International; data from Ancerno that gives company transaction costs for foreign stocks traded by more than

700 institutions in the home markets of 49 countries; and I.M.F. data on foreign portfolio investment flows in all 49 countries. Based on these data, it was clear that corruption in the 49 countries that were studied directly affected their financial markets. Corruption directly affected stock liquidity (making it hard to quickly buy or sell a particular stock or bond), the cost of buying and selling stocks and the trading costs of stocks. Corruption also affects the amount of foreign investment in a country as a percentage of gross domestic product, and the cost of financing corporate operations within a certain country. We discovered that, on average, corruption can reduce foreign equity investments by 70 percent, raise trading costs by 0.8 percentage points (that is, 80 basis points) and increase the cost of capital by up to 8.63 percentage points. The presence of corruption also makes it hard for outsiders to value a security properly. Higher levels of corruption typically lead to greater investor uncertainty and a wider gulf between what insiders and outsiders know about the value of a markets stocks and bonds. An answer to the problem, however, may lie in investing in education rather than in regulation. Our study also found that corruption was inversely related to the level of education in a country. So, more education typically relates to less corruption, and a country that wants to reduce corruption over the long run should promote and invest in education. In the meantime, what is an investor to do? Because of the perverse level playing field that makes moderately

corrupt countries unattractive, large investors looking at foreign markets might prefer to invest in the most corrupt nations (as well as the most transparent). There are corporate costs to engagingin corruption, however. Our study also examined 27 publicly traded companies that ran afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including I.B.M., Chevron and Siemens. We discovered that after each company was fined, its average trading costs and cost of capital were higher. These higher costs translate into a lower stock price for those firms that have been penalized under anticorruption laws. So should investors ask for more regulatory enforcement of corrupt foreign exchanges? Of course, but the incentives for doing what is morally right and for what actually might make a profit may not be so clearly aligned. Maybe governments role in promoting education might be another, more effective way to realign these incentives so that the world can be more transparent and less corrupt in the long run.

Squo SolvesCorruption has dropped in Latin America and will continue to Winter 2012 Winter is Chief Correspondent, Reuters Brazil from Sao Paulo and was previously theforeign editor for USA Today *Brian Winter, Corruption drops slightly in Latin America survey Reuters, Thu Jun 14, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/latinamerica-corruption-survey-idUSL1E8HD2PF20120614] BRASILIA, June 14 (Reuters) - While corruption remains a severe problem in Latin America, regional executives believe it has abated slightly, thanks to more stringent corporate ethics rules and enforcement of anti-graft laws, according to a survey released on Thursday. About 51 percent of respondents believed they had recently lost business to competitors who made illicit payments, the survey of 402 business leaders in Latin America found. That's down from 57 percent in a previous survey in 2008. About 25 percent of respondents said anti-graft laws in their country were effective, up from 15 percent in 2008. Chile and Uruguay were perceived to be the least corrupt of Latin American countries. Venezuela was seen as the most corrupt, followed by Bolivia, Argentina and Mexico. Brazil, the region's biggest economy, was roughly in the middle of the pack. "These results indicate a general view that people are less likely to get away with these crimes now," said James Tillen of Miller & Chevalier, one of two U.S.-based law firms that coordinated the survey. Three-quarters of respondents said they were aware of an offender being prosecuted for making or receiving illicit payments, up from 69 percent in the previous survey. The survey said more companies in the region are taking internal steps to prevent corruption - 85 percent of respondents said theirs were, compared with 76 percent in 2008. Tillen said increased enforcement in recent years of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it illegal for U.S. companies to pay bribes abroad, may have had a "snowball effect" by leading multinational companies in Latin America to adopt tougher standards. Several high-profile corruption cases have rocked the region recently. Wal-Mart Stores Inc is investigating bribery allegations at its Mexican unit and has initiated a global review of its anti-corruption compliance program. Latin Americans are also demanding cleaner government from their leaders. A wave of prosperity has pulled tens of millions of people into the middle class over the past decade, and polls show that corruption has become a more important issue to them as poverty and unemployment decline.

Corruption bad

Mexican EconomyGovernment corruption in Mexico is common and costing billions Zabludovsky, 2013-24 Horas Anchor---*Karla Zabludovsky, Starting to Come to Light, New York Times, 6-23-13,http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/americas/official-corruption-in-mexico-once-rarely-exposed-is-starting-to-come-tolight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] MEXICO CITY Andrs Granier has a sumptuous wardrobe and lifestyle. He has bragged about owning 400 pairs of shoes, 300 suits and 1,000 shirts, collected from luxury stores in New York and Los Angeles. His purchases barely fit in his several properties, scattered throughout Mexico and abroad. Enlarge This Image Bernardo Montoya/Reuters Tapes of Andrs Granier, center, the former governor of Tabasco State, boasting of his lifestyle were leaked to a radio station. America Rocio/Associated Press Cash that was found on a property linked to Jos Manuel Saiz, Mr. Graniers treasurer. Mr. Saiz was arrested this month. A tape recording of Mr. Graniers boasts, making him sound like a highflying corporate executive, was leaked to a local radio station last month. But his job title, until December, was governor of a midsize southeastern Mexican state, a position that currently pays about $92,000 a year after taxes. We go to Fifth Avenue and buy a pair of shoes; $600, Mr. Granier is heard saying about one of his trips abroad. I took clothes to Miami, I took clothes to Cancn, I took clothes to my house, and I have leftovers, he added, saying, Im going to auction them off. (The day after the recording was made public, he said that he had been inebriated while making those statements in October.) But just as eye-opening as the extravagances of a public official now under investigation after Mr. Graniers successor

discovered that about $190 million in state funds was unaccounted for, the state government said this month is that they came to light at all in a country where state and local corruption, a serious drag on Mexicos development, run deep and are rarely exposed. The case of Mr. Granier, whowas taken into custody on June 14 at a Mexico City hospital where he is being treated for a heart ailment, is just the latest among several former governors and public officials who have recently found themselves under investigation or facing public scorn. Watchdog groups are gaining strength, opposition parties are challenging and exposing the faults of the status quo, and social and traditional news media organizations are increasingly seeking to hold officials accountable. There will be more of these because the issue has taken off, said Ricardo Corona, a public finance expert at the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness, a research group in Mexico City. There is encouragement on the issues of transparency, accountability, access to information. Mr. Graniers case is one of the more closely followed political spectacles here in recent years. By January, when the new government in his state, Tabasco, found holes in the budget, Mr. Granier, 65, had retreated into obscurity. This month, after public shock and outrage over the recording reached a fever pitch, he suddenly resurfaced on television, saying he was in Miami. Im going back to Mexico, he declared in an interview on one of Mexicos most-watched morning shows, Primero Noticias. I dont owe absolutely anything. Upon his arrival at the airport in the capital the following day, a chaotic news media swarm engulfed Mr. Granier at one point he stumbled before the cameras before he was whisked away in a white S.U.V., with camera crews on motorcycles giving chase. Three days later, the Tabasco state attorneys office issued an arraignment order for Mr. Granier on suspicion of embezzlement and improper exercise of public service. His treasurer, Jos Manuel Saiz, already

had been arrested this month on suspicion of embezzlement as he tried to cross the border into the United States, after boxes containingnearly $7 million in unexplained cash were discovered on a property linked to him. A decade ago, such suspicious accounting would have most likely been kept under wraps, as Mexican officials tended to protect one another and the public took their malfeasance for granted. During the uninterrupted 71-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, governors, who often secured their appointments based on friendly ties with the autocratic presidents, were almost expected to pillage state treasuries. When the party lost the 2000 presidential election, it left a political vacuum across the states. Governors around the country acquired unprecedented autonomy and almost no oversight,

State debt rose to $30 billion in 2012 from about $15 billion in 2008, according to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. Accounting for inflation, that was a 70.4 percent increase, according to an article in the online publication Animal Poltico by Marco Cancino, a politicalsaid Alfonso Zrate, the president of Grupo Consultor Interdisciplinario, a political consulting firm in Mexico. analyst in Mexico City. Governments have reported scant details of how they have spent the money from these loans. But with governors from opposing political parties succeeding one another and doing away with the unspoken pact of the PRI years, in which incoming leaders protected departing ones, a system of checks and balances some have called it political retribution is emerging. Freedom of information laws, recent legislative overhauls demanding more accountability from state governments and an increasingly technologically engaged society have been more successful at preventing murky finances from going unquestioned. As a result, tales of disgraced former governors are becoming a staple of the news here, and are part of what Mr. Zrate calls an incipient democracy. In 2011, the federal attorney generals office opened an investigation into a $3 billion debt in the state of Coahuila, acquired mostly during the administration of Humberto Moreira, a former president of the PRI, which recovered the presidency in December. The former governor of the state of Aguascalientes, Luis Armando Reynoso,

is being investigated over improper exercise of public service, news organizations have reported. Last year, Mario Ernesto Villanueva Madrid, the former governor of the state of Quintana Roo who was extradited to the United States in 2010, pleaded guilty to conspiring to launder millions of dollars in bribes he received from the powerful Jurez drug organization, to ensure that its cocaine moved safely through hisstate, undisturbed by law enforcement. Inroads in transparency, however, have yet to change the culture and mentality of El que no tranza, no avanza, or He who does not cheat, does not get ahead, a popular motto here. And these victories have yet to transform the countrys image abroad: Mexico fell in Transparency Internationals corruption perception index to 105th place in 2012 from 57th in 2002, with a lower ranking indicating that the country is seen as more corrupt. We still dont have accountability, said Mr. Cancino, the political analyst, who

warned that progress in transparency practices at the federal level would slowly make their way down to the local and state levels. There are still 32 battles that we have to wage, he said, referring to Mexicos 31 states and one federal district. Small gains in transparency, seen through scandals like the one enveloping Mr. Granier, have not translated into justice served, experts say. Governors are investigated but rarely charged. We know what is going on, said Sergio Aguayo, a political analyst at the Colegio de Mxico. But no measures are being taken. Mexicans who are active on Twitter discuss these scandals for days and sometimes weeks, shaming politicians and pressing traditional news media to cover them extensively. But political analysts argue that there are no effective mechanisms yet to translate citizen participation into structural change. What do we do so that society goes from indignation to action? Mr. Cancino asked. In the meantime, former politicians who endure public scrutiny and a dose of humiliation often come out of these scandals largely unscathed. In April, the newspaper Reforma reported that Mr. Moreira, the repudiated former Coahuila governor, was living with his family in an upscale neighborhood in Barcelona, Spain, while attending a local university.

Mexico needs to save money-GDP is and has been low

Mexico recorded a Government Budget deficit equal to 0.60 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2012. Government Budget in Mexico is reported by the Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito Publico. Mexico Government Budget averaged -1.01 Percent of GDP from 1990 until 2012, reaching an all time high of 0.81 Percent of GDP inDecember of 1992 and a record low of -3.11 Percent of GDP in December of 2009. Government Budget is an itemized accounting of the payments received by government (taxes and other fees) and the payments made by government (purchases and transfer payments). A budget deficit occurs when an government spends more money than it takes in. The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus. This page includes a chart with historical data for Mexico Government Budget.

Mexicos moderate corruption does not benefit its economy

Pagano, 1-28-Robert J. and Mary Ellen Darretta Endowed Chair in Finance at the Villanova School of Business---*Michael S. Pagano, WhenCorruption Helps the Bottom Line, New York Times, 1-28-13, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/when-corruption-helps-the-bottomline/]

Most investors would agree that less corruption and more transparency in financial markets are good things. But in a contrarian way, a high degree of corruption in foreign markets can actually be beneficial. Andthat may provide an interesting counterargument to recent enforcement actions. The fact that large-scale corruption exists is not in dispute; in many foreign markets it is clearly caveat emptor. Actions by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United States are making front-page headlines almost on a weekly basis in recent years. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. recently released guidance on the corrupt practices act, a law that has become problematic for many global companies. And many other countries around the world are also following suit with newly empowered regulatory agencies. In April 2011, Britain passed the Bribery Act, a major compliance regulation, to go after corruption. Under this backdrop, Professors Pankaj K. Jain of the University of Memphis, Emre Kuvvet of Texas A&M and I set out to analyze just what effects corruption had on investment, cost of capital and market liquidity for institutional investors. We examined corruption and its effect on financial markets at the national level using data from 49 countries. Our finding that investing conditions are extremely favorable in Denmark, one of the most transparent countries, makes logical sense. What is surprising is that the most corrupt countries

like Venezuela (which is at the very bottom of our list at No. 49) are actually better for investors than moderately corrupt countries like Morocco or Mexico. This finding pointsto a perverse level playing field where potential investors in these extremely corrupt countries know who is in charge and can thereby

in moderately corrupt countries, it is unclear who is in charge and how to play the game. Corruption is a result of several factors, including the increased pressure on investors and companies to compete for lucrativesucceed and prosper. But international business opportunities. As noted in a 2011 working paper, the benefits obtained by bribing officials or engaging in corrupt behavior can be quite tempting; it is estimated that the average return is 10 to 11 times the original bribe amount for 166 prominent cases in 20 countries. We used several tools to help us quantify some of the effects of corruption on stock prices. Some of those included the corruption perceptions index data from Transparency International; data from Ancerno that gives company transaction costs for foreign stocks traded by more than 700 institutions in the home markets of 49 countries; and I.M.F. data on foreign portfolio investment flows in all 49 countries. Based on these data, it was clear that corruption in the 49 countries that were studied directly affected their financial markets. Corruption directly affected stock liquidity (making it hard to quickly buy or sell a particular stock or bond), the cost of buying and selling stocks and the trading costs of stocks. Corruption also affects the amount of foreign investment in a country as a percentage of gross domestic product, and the cost of financing corporate operations within a certain country. We discovered that, on average, corruption can reduce foreign equity investments by 70 percent, raise trading costs by 0.8 percentage points (that is, 80 basis points) and increase the cost of capital by up to 8.63 percentage points. The presence of corruption also makes it hard for outsiders to value a security properly. Higher levels of corruption typically lead to greater investor uncertainty and a wider gulf between what insiders and outsiders know about the value of a markets stocks and bonds. An answer to the problem, however, may lie in investing in education rather than in regulation. Our study also found that corruption was inversely related to the level of education in a country. So, more education typically relates to less corruption, and a country that wants to reduce corruption over the long run should promote and invest in education. In the meantime, what is an investor to do?

Because of the

perverse level playing field that makes moderately corrupt countries unattractive, large investors looking at foreign markets might prefer to invest in the most corrupt nations (as well as the mosttransparent). There are corporate costs to engaging in corruption, however. Our study also examined 27 publicly traded companies that ran afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including I.B.M., Chevron and Siemens. We discovered that after each company was fined, its average trading costs and cost of capital were higher. These higher costs translate into a lower stock price for those firms that have been penalized under anticorruption laws. So should investors ask for more regulatory enforcement of corrupt foreign exchanges? Of course, but the incentives for doing what is morally right and for what actually might make a profit may not be so clearly aligned. Maybe governments role in promoting education might be another, more effective way to realign these incentives so that the world can be more transparent and less corrupt in the long run.

Venezuela OilOil revenues are high but government corruption takes awayCoronel, 2008-President of Agrupacion Pro Calidad de Vida, Venezuelan representative to Transparency International from 1996-2000.Member of the board of directors of Petroleos de Venezuela from 1976-79 *Gustavo Coronel, The Corruption of Democracy in Venezuela, Cato Institute, March 2008, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuela]

In the nine years since Chavez came to power, an estimated $300,000,000,000 of oil income has entered the national treasury. The exact number is uncertain due to the poor transparency of the government accounts, and because the nationalpetroleum company no longer presents financial results to the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission or to the Venezuelan people. In parallel, during Chavezs tenure, national debt has increased from $22,000,000,000 to about $70,000,000,000. Together with income tax revenues, the total income of Venezuela during Chavezs presidency has been approximately $700,000,000,000. This formidable amount of money is nowhere to be seen in terms of public works or effective health and education programs. Three parallel budgets existedtotaling more than $80,000,000,000in 2007: the formal one, for some $55,000,000,000 (including additional amounts), approved without discussion by the submissive National Assembly; a second one, amounting to $10,000,000,000, derived from the international monetary reserves taken from the Venezuelan Central Bank, in violation of the laws of the country; and a third, in the amount of $15,000,000,000, built from the funds siphoned out of Petroleos de Venezuela, monies which were required for investment and maintenance of the petroleum industry. None of these budgets are discussed publicly or subject to accountability. Irregularities abound in the management of public funds: more

than $22,500,000,000 in dollar transfers have been made to foreign accounts, maintains the Venezuelan Central Bank, and at least half of that money remains unaccounted for. Jose Guerra, a former Central Bank executive, indicates that some of this money has been used by Chavez to buy political loyalties in the region and some has beendonated to Cuba and Bolivia, among other countries. According to a Jan. 31, 2006, story in the Financial Times, a select group of Venezuelan bankers, including those at Banco Occidental de Descuento and Fondo Comun, has profited from the acquisition of Argentinean bonds by the Venezuelan government, at the expense of the national treasury. The bonds are bought at the official rate of exchange and sold at black market rates, at considerable profit. Venezuelan journalist Carlos Ball estimates that bankers loyal to the government could have profited by up to $600,000,000 as a result of the differential between the official and the black market rates. Former Chavez Minister of Finance Jose Rojas has predicted that the loss of autonomy of the Venezuelan Central Bank and the disorder in the management of the financial resou rces on the part of the government will lead to a significant financial crisis. The

nine years of Chavezs presidency have led to the highest levels of government corruption ever experienced in Venezuela. The main reasons have been: the record oil incomeobtained by the nation, money going directly into Chavezs pockets; a mediocre management team working without transparency or accountability; the ideological predilections of Chavez, which have led him to try to play a messianic role in Latin America, and even world affairs; and the policies of handouts put in place by Chavez to keep the Venezuelan masses politically loyal.

Corruption causes the downfall of oil companies

Coronel, 2008-President of Agrupacion Pro Calidad de Vida, Venezuelan representative to Transparency International from 1996-2000.Member of the board of directors of Petroleos de Venezuela from 1976-79 *Gustavo Coronel, The Corruption of Democracy in Venezuela, Cato Institute, March 2008, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuela]

High levels of mismanagement at the state-owned petroleum company, Petroleos de Venezuela. Corruption heretakes many shapes. It includes the naming of six presidents and boards in seven years, in an effort to control the company politically. This finally was accomplished by naming the Minister of Energy and Petroleum president of the company, in violation of good management practice, since he now supervises himself. As

a result, oil production has declined by some 800,000 barrels per day during the last decade. In a recent public hearing, Luis Vierma, the firms Vice President for Exploration and Production, admitted giving an oil welldrilling contract for some $20,000,000 to a company with only three employees and no rigs.

Cubas economic freedom score is 28.5, making its economy one of the worlds least free. Its overall score is 0.2 pointhigher than last year, with a notable decline in monetary freedom counterbalanced by gains in freedom from corruption and fiscal freedom. Cuba is ranked least free of 29 countries in the South and Central America/Caribbean region, and its overall score is significantly lower than the regional average. Cuba scores far below world averages in most areas of economic freedom, and its economy remains one of the worlds most repressed. The judiciary. No courts are free of political interference, and pervasive corruption

foundations of economic freedom are particularly weak in the absence of an independent and fair affects many aspects of economic

activity. As the largest source of employment, the public sector accounts for more than 80 percent of all jobs. A watered-down reformpackage endorsed by the Cuban Communist Party in April 2011 promised to trim the number of state workers and allow restricted selfemployment in the non-public sector, but many details of the reform are obscure and little progress has been observed. The private sector is severely constrained by heavy regulations and tight state controls. Open-market policies are not in place to spur growth in trade and investment, and the lack of competition stifles productivity growth.

Heg Bad

Heg = Econ Collapse

Hegemony kills trade, causes protectionism and arms race Lobell 09 (Steven E., Professor of Political Science at Utah University, Excerpt from Challenge of Hegemony, Published by the University of Michigan Press,Written in December, 2009, pg. 154-155,Elibrary) JA

In encountering new and old competitors on disparate fronts, free traders will respond to these external pressures by pushing the government to cooperate with liberal contenders and perhaps even imperial contenders. The domestic outcome of cooperation will ratchet-up the strength of efficient industry, the financial sector, consumers, and fiscal conservatives. Cooperation entails reduced protectionism, elimination of exchange controls, participation in NGOs and IGOs, territorial concessions, membership in collective security arrangements, and the negotiation of arms limitation agreements. Economy-minded free traders will favor aiding in the rise of liberal contenders, thereby expediting the hegemons costsaving retreat from the locale. In doing so, the hegemon will retain access to its traditional interests in the locale without bearing any of the economic, political, or military costs associated with regional hegemony. Free traders will resist punishing states, even imperial competitors, because that will bolster the political clout of economic nationalists who will push for a more hard-line grand strategy. Punishing liberal contenders (even in a vital or strategic locale) will create the false illusion of incompatibility that can intensify into a self-defeating hostility spiral that disrupts trade, results in protectionism and beggar-thy-neighbor economic policies, and contributes to an arms race.

Hegemony will inevitably cause economic collapse, fascism, and coercion. The only way to solve is through transnationalism Martins and Thompson 07 (Carlos Eduardo Martins is research director of the UNESCO-UNU Network on the Global Economy andSustainable Development and an associate researcher at the Laboratory of Public Policy of the State University of Rio de Janeiro. Timothy Thompson is a Boren Research Fellow at the Institute of International Education, and teaching fellow at Boston College. "The Impasses of U.S. Hegemony: Perspectives for the Twentyfirst Century". Published by SAGE publications in their journal Latin American Perspectives Vol 34 No. 1. Written in January of 2007. jstor) JA

The trajectories of U.S. hegemony and the modern world system in the coming decades should be understood in terms of these three long-run tendencies. I would argue that the expansion phase of a new Kondratieff cycle has been developing in the United States since 1994. This expansion will lack the brilliance of the phase that developed in the postwar period. It will be shorter and will promote lower rates of growth, since it will be affected by two downward trends: civilizational crisis and the B-phase of the systemic cycle. Within this new phase of expansion, the financial and ideological foundations of U.S. hegemony will deteriorate, and the United States will lose the leadership position that it exercised in the world economy from 1980 to 1990, when it was surpassed in dynamism only by East Asia. The world will enter a new phase of systemic chaos, and no nation-state will be able to reconstruct the world-system on new hegemonic bases. A bifurcation will occur: on one hand, there will be forces attempting to restore historical capitalism to U.S. imperialism via the cohesion of the principal centers of global wealth, and, on the other hand, there will be forces seeking to overcome the modern worldsystem through a posthegemonic system. This confrontation will occur not only among nation-states (although, in part, it may be oriented in terms of them) but also transnationally. The transnational dimension, aimed at creating new forms of power to direct both human existence and the planet, has already manifested itself, for example, in mass demonstrations against U.S. imperialism and the oligarchic coordination of the world economy and in attempts to organize social movements on a global scale, most notably in the World Social Forum. If transnationalism succeeds, humanity will be able to traverse the systemic chaos without succumbing to a cataclysmic war. Transnational forces will create

"drive belts" across nation-states, circumventing global oligarchies. But if nationalism succeeds, it will be difficult to avoid a move toward fascism, barbarism, and the use of the state as an instrument of coercion.

In this article, I provide a theory of unipolarity that focuses on the issue of unipolar peacefulness rather than durability. I argue that unipolarity creates significant conflict-producing mechanisms that are likely to involve the unipole itself. Rather than assess the relative peacefulness of unipolarity vis--vis bipolar or multipolar systems, I identify causal pathways to war that are characteristic of a unipolar system and that have not been developed in the extant literature. To be sure, I do not question the impossibility of great power war in a unipolar world. Instead, I show how unipolar systems provide incentives for two other types of war: those pitting the sole great power against another state and those involving exclusively other states. In addition, I show that the type of conflict that occurs in a unipolar world depends on the strategy of the sole great power, of which there are three. The first twodefensive and offensive dominancewill lead to conflicts pitting the sole great power against other states. The thirddisengagementwill lead to conflicts among other states. Furthermore, whereas the unipole is likely to enter unipolarity implementing a dominance strategy, over time it is possible that it will shift to disengagement.

Heg = China War

Continued U.S Hegemony will inevitably cause U.S - China War Thompson 12 (William R., professor of political science and Kinesiology at Indiana University. Excerpt from "Correspondence: Decline andRetrenchmentPeril or Promise?", Published by International Security Spring of 2012. project muse) JA

All great powers and their relative declines/transitions can be compared only with careful qualifications. Some powers are more important than others, and because they are more important, their transitions have been considerably less peaceful in the past. [End Page 196] Yet perhaps that is the problem. These conflicts were in the past, and something may have changed fundamentally. One possibility is that Europe harbored a string of territorially expansive political-military actors that no longer exist. Europe has played itself out as a cockpit of political-military bids for regional hegemony, but then Asia offers some prospects for both regional type III hegemony struggles (China-India and China and Russia) and a type I conflict (China-United States).

Continued U.S hegemony will inevitably cause U.S - China war (This town ain't big enough for the two of us) Layne 12 ( Christopher, professor of international affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Robert M. GatesChair in National Security. Excerpt from "This Time Its Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana". Published by International Studies Quarterly, March 2012. wiley online library) JA

Great power politics is about power. Rules and institutions do not exist in vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In international politics, who rules makes the rules. The post-World War II international order is an American order that privileges the United States interests. Even the discourse of liberal order cannot conceal this fact. This is why the notion that China can be constrained by integrating into the post-1945 international order lacks credulity. For US scholars and policymakers alike, Chinas successful integration hinges on Beijings willingness to accept the Pax Americanas institutions, rules, and norms. In other words, China must accept playing second fiddle to the United States. Revealingly, Ikenberry makes clear this expectation when he says that the deal the United States should propose to China is for Washington to accommodate a rising China by offering it status and position within the regional order in return for Beijings acceptance and accommodation of Washingtons core interests, which include remaining a dominant security provider within East Asia (Ikenberry 2011:356). It is easy to see why the United States would want to cut such a deal but it is hard to see whats in it for China. American hegemony is waning and China is ascending, and there is zero reason for China to accept this bargain because it aims to be the hegemon in its own region. The unfolding Sino-American rivalry in East Asia can be seen as an example of Dodge City syndrome (in American Western movies, one gunslinger says to the other: This town aint big enough for both of us) or as a geopolitical example of Newtonian physics (two hegemons cannot occupy the same region at the same time). From either perspective, the dangers should be obvious: unless the United States is willing to accept Chinas ascendancy in East (and Southeast) Asia, Washington and Beijing are on a collision course.

U.S Hegemony will cause China War Layne 08 (Christopher Layne, professor of international affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Robert M.Gates Chair in National Security. Excerpt from "China's Challenge to U.S Hegemony". Published by Current History January 2008. http://acme.highpoint.edu/~msetzler/IR/IRreadingsbank/chinauscontain.ch08.6.pdf )

Chinas rise affects the United States because of what international relations scholars call the power transition effect: Throughout the history of the modern international state system, ascending powers

have always challenged the position of the dominant (hegemonic) power in the international system and these challenges have usually culminated in war. Notwithstanding Beijings talk about a peaceful rise, an ascending China inevitably will challenge the geopolitical equilibrium in East Asia. The doctrine of peaceful rise thus is a reassurance strategy employed by Beijing in an attempt to allay others fears of growing Chinese power and to forestall the United States from acting preventively during the dangerous transition period when China is catching up to the United States. Does this mean that the United States and China are on a collision course that will lead to a war in the next decade or two? Not necessarily. What happens in Sino-American relations largely depends on what strategy Washington chooses to adopt toward China. If the United States tries to maintain its current dominance in East Asia, Sino-American conflict is virtually certain, because U.S. grand strategy has incorporated the logic of anticipatory violence as an instrument for maintaining American primacy . For a declining hegemon, strangling the baby in the crib by attacking a rising challenger preventivelythat is, while the hegemon still holds the upper hand militarilyhas always been a tempting strategic option.

U.S attempts to maintain it's hegemony will spark U.S China nuclear War Etzioni 7/2 *most recent impact evidence ( Amitai Etzioni, professor of International Relations at George WashingotnUniversity. Excerpt from his article "Preparing to Go to War with China". Publihsed by the Huffington Post on July 2, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitaietzioni/preparing-to-go-to-war-wi_b_3533398.html ) JA

Officials emphasize that ASB is not directed at any one nation. However, no country has invested nearly as much in A2/AD as China and few international environments are more contested -- than the waters of the Asia-Pacific. Hence, while in the past the U.S. could send in a couple aircraft carriers as a credible display of force, as it did in 1996 when the Chinese conducted a series of missile tests and military exercises in the Strait of Taiwan, in the not-so-distant future Chinese anti-ship missiles could deny U.S. access to the region. Thus, it is not surprising that one senior Navy official overseeing modernization efforts stated that, "Air-Sea Battle is all about convincing the Chinese that we will win this competition." Although much of the ASB remains classified, in May of this year the Navy released an unclassified summary that illuminates how the concept is beginning to shape the military's plans and acquisitions. In 2011, the Pentagon set up the Air-Sea Battle Office to coordinate investments, organize war games, and incorporate the ASB concept in training and education across all four Services. A Congressional Research Service report notes that "the Air-Sea Battle concept has prompted Navy officials to make significant shifts in the service's FY2014-FY2018 budget plan, including new investments in ASW, electronic attack and electronic warfare, cyber warfare, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle]." Critics of Air-Sea Battle warn that it is inherently escalatory and could even precipitate a nuclear war. Not only will the U.S.'s development of ASB likely accelerate China's expansion of its nuclear, cyber, and space weapons programs, but according to Joshua Rovner of the U.S. Naval War College, the early and deep inland strikes on enemy territory envisioned by the concept could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as preemptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into "a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma." Hence, some call for "merely" imposing a blockade on China along the first island chain (which stretches from Japan to Taiwan and through the Philippines) in order to defeat an aggressive China without risking a nuclear war.

U.S hegemony will cause U.S China war which escalates to global war Hareshan 7/16 ( Mihai Hareshan, writer for the nine o'clock which is a news website that provides global information on multiple differentinternational issues. Based in Romania. Excerpt from "US-China war plans". Published by nine o'clock news on July 16, 2013 at 9:00 PM http://www.nineoclock.ro/us-china-war-plans/ ) JA

According to the theory of international relations, the (global) systematic order usually changes through a generalised war named hegemony. This war usually erupts when the leader of the system in the present situation the USA is in danger of being replaced by the direct challenger, which today is China. At stake in this fight is taking the systemic leadership and founding a new order, profitable to the new hegemon, i.e. the eventual winner. As it is known, following an exponential economic increase for the last three decades, China now ranks second systemically, from an economic point of view if we do not see the EU as a sole political entity and trustworthy forecasts show that it will also outpace the USA in the coming years (in terms of economic volume, not as GDP per capita). It is equally known, especially after a recent book written by Joseph Nye Jr., that it is not only the GDP which gives the measure of a states power. HHHHHHHHHAnd, from this perspective, the USA seems to be irreplaceable at the top of the system of states for the next generation. Historic practice shows that, in conditions of a competition between hegemon and the main contender being installed at the top of the system, with the power gap between them narrowing gradually, the possibility of a hegemonic war is very high and the conflict can start from a calculation (the kind of: it is the last moment when the challenger can be stopped, or the hegemon can be defeated) or by accident. This period of tension induced by the competition at the peak of the system is reflected through a succession of crises that involve these actors or their allies, as well as through an arms race that grows incessantly. From this last perspective, one enters what is called in theory the prisoners dilemma which states that perceptions, rather than realities, hidden by the absence of transparency, play the essential role in the major decisions of peace and war. Many experts take into consideration the fact that today the system undergoes such a period of uncertainty, marked by power crises and competition between the big actors of international relations.

Heg = TerrorismU.S hegemony causes Muslims to backlash against the United States (a lil shady) Blaydes and Linzer 12 ( Lisa Blaydes and Drew A. Linzer. Blaydes is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. Linzer is anassistant professor of political science at Emory University, and a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Stanford University Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. Excerpt from " Elite Competition, Religiosity, and Anti-Americanism in the Islamic World". Published by The American Political Science Review in May of 2012. Proquest) JA

Because of the political, economic, and cultural hegemony of the United States, large segments of Muslim society are receptive to anti-American rhetoric--from whichever side it comes. Opinion surveys indicate that most Muslims believe Americans are not religious enough and that the religious beliefs that they do hold drive the United States to make bad decisions in the world (Kohut and Stokes 2006, 93). Although many individuals across the Muslim world enjoy American movies, television, and music, they also view globalization and the spreading influence of American culture as potential threats to local beliefs (Esposito and Mogahed 2008; Faath and Mattes 2006; Hammond 2007; Kohut and Stokes 2006).

Hegemony is the motive for terrorism Stern 05 ( Jessica, a fellow at the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at the Harvard School of Public Health. She is an Advanced Academic Candidate atthe Massachusetts Institute of Psychoanalysis and one of the foremost experts on terrorism. She serves on the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law. In 2009, she was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for her work on trauma and violence. Excerpt from "Addressing the Causes of Terrorism : Culture". Publihsed by the Club de Madrid, March 8-11 2005. http://media.clubmadrid.org/docs/CdM-Series-on-Terrorism-Vol-1.pdf ) JA

Gardner Peckham does not believe that globalization is a motivating factor for terrorists: while globalization increases the flow of trade and ideas, thereby increasing terrorists capacity to do us harm, their interest in doing so is not a result of that process. The counterargument, which the author of this paper and other members of the working group subscribe to, is that globalization and the need to compete for jobs and ideas on a global scale feels humiliating, even if global productivity rises and although, on average, most people benefit. Terrorists find a way to augment and strengthen this feeling of humiliation among potential recruits. In this context, it is worth recalling the words of Bin Ladens deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, who argues that it is better for the youth of Islam to pick up arms than to submit to the humiliation of globalization and Western hegemony

Hegemony and inequality of power. When local or international powers possess an overwhelming power compared to oppositional groups, and the latter see no other realistic ways to forward their cause by normal political or military means, asymmetrical warfare can represent a tempting option. Terrorism offers the possibility of achieving high political impact with limited means .

Heg = GenocideMassacres and loss of autonomy define U.S hegemony, empirics prove Taylor 12 ( Lucy Taylor, VP of the Society for Latin American Studies, lecturer and professor at Prifysgol Aberystwyth University. Excerpt from "DecolonizingInternational Relations: Perspectives from Latin America". Published by International Studies Review in September 2012. wiley) JA

From a coloniality of power perspective embedded in contemporary Latin America, the most obvious binary which contributes to US dominance is the Native/settler binary. The USA was constructed through a process in which the superiority of northern European settler people and their worldviews was asserted over Native American societies. This took the form of on-going territorial, economic, and epistemological conquest over Native peoples throughout the period, but perhaps the most formative experience, according to Shari Huhndorf, was the drive West in the nineteenth century (2001). This pivotal moment of struggle and national myth formation consolidated the US nation-state in terms of territory, migration, and economic expansion, as well as solidifying its national identity (Huhndorf 2001: 1964; Bender 2006: 193241). The colonial project of western expansion was characterized by massacres, displacement, and deception, which decimated Native communities and asserted the settlers military, political, and epistemological dominance (DErrico 2001). As land was settled, the country became subdued and the enclosure of Native Americans in Reservations served to confirm the hegemonic dominance of a nation-state, which could set the terms of limited Native autonomy (Ostler 2004). Moreover, the mythology of the White pioneer who built ranches and towns in the wilderness attempted to displace the Native peoples from their status of original Americans (Agnew and Sharp 2002; Wolfe 2006). This domination was territorial but also epistemic and ethnic, then, and the success, coherence, and completeness of political domination and ethnic silencing played a direct role in generating a coherent and complete vision of America. Thus, and in the words of Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893, Moving westward, the frontier became more and more American (quoted in Huhndorf 2005: 56). This dominance was confirmed by the capacity of US culture to appropriate Native imagery and practices in a wide range of scenarios from the movies to Scouting via World Fairs and fashion (Huhndorf 2001: 1978, 162202). Native Americans have never ceased to resist this onslaught and to express the agonies of the colonial wound and the fresh imaginaries of the colonial difference (Alfred and Corntassel 2005; Tyeeme Clark and Powell 2008), but the success of the American Dream made for the dominance of the hegemonic settler culture (Churchill 1997).

Heg = Racism/SexismAmerican hegemony is intertwined with racism and sexism Katzenstein et al 10 (Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Leila Mohsen Ibrahim and Katherine D. Rubin. Katzenstein is a Professor of American Studies andprofessor of Government at Cornell University. Ibrahim and Rubin are PhD candiates at Cornell university. This paper "The Dark Side of American Liberalism and Felony Disenfranchisement" won the Heinz I. Eulau Award for the best journal article of the calendar year published by Perspectives on Politics December 2010. Proquest) JA

Two interpretive frameworks provide a conceptual starting point in any analysis of liberal and illiberal traditions within American democracy. These are the unitary liberalism of Tocquevillean provenance and the multiple-traditions critique of the liberal hegemony thesis developed by Rogers Smith. 19 The Tocquevillean thesis, as Rogers Smith depicts it, constitutes a long-lived "orthodoxy on American identity."20 The Tocquevillean perspective adheres to a view of American history that identifies the distinctive character of the nation as free-born, unburdened by the givens of aristocracy and status hierarchy. By dint of this history, Americans are seen as baptized in the waters of egalitarian ideals and liberal beliefs. Racism and other exclusionary beliefs and practices are bracketed as departures from rather than constitutive of a common national ideological core. In his multiple-traditions critique, by contrast, Rogers Smith describes this core national culture as an intertwining of three distinctive traditions: liberalism, republicanism, and exclusionary forms of Americanism.21The multiple traditions thesis sees American civic identity as forged through the historical forces of exclusionary as well as egalitarian, moralistic as well as tolerant, ascriptive as well as achievement-based norms and practices. The threads of exclusion are not just visible on the margins. The warp of racism, sexism, and other ascriptive beliefs and practices is fully intertwined among the weft of liberalism and republicanism.

Ensuring that PEMEX has adequate funds to re-invest in infrastructure each year seems obvious from a business perspective, but as discussed this has not occurred. With almost two thirds of its annual revenues going toward taxes (representing nearly roughly 40% of the federal budget), PEMEX has been essentially bled dry and lacks the funds and inhouse ability to address all its woes.41 While the accumulated damage from decades of undercapitalization cannot be undone overnight, taking the first step back should not be put off anylonger. The Mexican government needs to work with the leadership within PEMEX to identify and establish annual funding for re-investment that is in line with commercial industry norms. While this will mean reduced government revenue from PEMEX in the short term, it promises to bring significant increases in overall revenue in the future, both from PEMEX and from the economic growth that a healthy natural gas operation will bring

The decline in production is particularly worrisome, since oil revenues are critical to the financial solvency of the government, accounting for 35 percent of government income. The sustained high level in oil prices has masked the net decline in crude exports, but a significant shift in the international oil market could result in a severe financial crisis. That fear, and the perceived need to increase oil income, drove the 2008 Energy Reform. The government currently relies on extracting revenue from petroleum production and sales rather thantaxation to finance the public budget. As a result, PEMEX's financial condition is determined not only by the market but by the policies of the Secretariat of Finance and Public Creditwhere, even under the latest fiscal regime, 70 percent of PEMEX net income goes to paying taxes and duties. Thus, despite being one of the top petroleum companies in the world, pemex

is technically bankrupt, sharply curtailing the possibilities for growth and investment for innovation.

The presidential election cycle in Mexico brought a host of policy proposals and election-year debates over critical elements of national policy. But key among them is energy. Indeed, during his candidacy Enrique Pea Nieto spokeoften and forcefully about how his government would take on the energy challenges in Mexico.

Within the broad expanse of energy issues, there is an overarching topic of great importance for Mexico and all of North America: the role of natural gas and development of shale gas reserves.Natural gas sales in Mexico have risen 70 percent in the last decade while production increased but 46 percent and imports from the United States hit record highs in 2012. Pipeline infrastructure has become increasingly jammed and further complicated by the Reynosa plant accident. Cuts by Pemex of natural gas supplies to industrial consumers underscore the challenge.

Mexico's increasing appetite for natural gas particularly for power generation bears mentioning. Indeed, natural gas is increasingly replacing oil as a feedstock for electric generation in Mexico. Estimates indicate thatalmost 50 percent of electric capacity additions in Mexico over the next decade will be gas-fired, combined cycle generation.

But all is not lost. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Mexico has the second largest shale gas potential in Latin America and the fourth largest in the world. Mexico counts around 16 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas reserves but a 2011 Energy Information Administration (EIA) report indicated that Mexico has the second largest shale gas potential in Latin America, second only to Argentina and the fourth largest in the world. The EIA report places Mexico's shale gas potential at 680 TCF. The potential associated with the EIA figures for shale gas in Mexico has not gone unnoticed by Mexican energy officials. Indeed, some have increasingly advocated for a "Shale Revolution" of their own and the possibility for shale gas to jumpstart a lagging petrochemical industry. To wit, some senior government officials have argued that Pemex should create a new subsidiary focused exclusively on natural gas to spur nascent shale exploration and production, particularly given that shale gas technology and expertise differ from that of conventional fields.Figures from Mexico's Energy Ministry indicate that ramping up a shale gas industry could mean investment between $7 billion and $10 billion a year. And many cite the possibility to jumpstart the petrochemical industry. Moreover,

without shale, natural gas production in Mexico will not keep up with demand. But with shale gas development, Mexico could position itself to transition from its current status as a natural gas importer to a huge international player when it comes to natural gas.There are issues that policy makers in Mexico, especially in the incoming government, must take into account as they endeavor to seize its shale gas potential.

Technology stands out as a key element for the successful development of shale gas in Mexico. Gainingaccess to the technology and know-how necessary to extract the gas in a cost-effective and environmentally secure manner is critical.

Pemex also plays a role. In mid-2011 Pemex completed its first shale gas well, tapping into the Eagle Ford formation near the Texas border. More recently, Pemex has indicated that it will drill more than 150 wells through 2016 in an effort to better assess Mexico's shale gas potential. By the end of 2012, three more shale gas wells should be completed by Pemex.

Mexico doesnt need to integrate it can become self sufficient Bailey 3/5 (Shale and Beyond: The Next Phase of Latin American Energy Integration, Jed Bailey, Cambridge Energy Research Associates,05 Mar 2013, World Politics Review, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12761/shale-and-beyond-the-next-phase-of-latin-americanenergy-integration) //EY Thus it would appear that the prospects for further regional energy integration in Latin America are now at an intriguing crossroads. Recent

technological and economic trends suggest there is now less of an impetus for substantial integration. New production from shale gas reserves in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, and new discoveries of traditional reserves in Brazil,

Uruguay and, potentially, Paraguay, can

increasingly make these countries self-sufficient in natural gas. This democratization of natural gas supply, combined with growing environmental concerns about the development of large-scale hydro projects, removes much of the economic incentive for power integration, as the widespread availability of natural gas across the region removes a major source of long-term electricity price differences across countries. Local gas plants can also backstop hydro units in case of drought, removing the need for hydrodominated systems to link with neighbors with greater thermal capacity, since countries can now just build their own. Not building major hydro projects also means fewer projects that require cross-border linkages to justify their construction.

March 1, 2013. The Mexican Government expected that natural gas will become the primary fuel for the energy transition from this year, according to the National Energy Strategy, presented to the Senate. The document prepared by the Secretariat of Energy notes that the use of this fuel will benefit in the development of the country's energy matrix. Among benefits are observed that associated processing costs are cheaper, and the estimated potential for exploitation is high. It adds that this fuel has environmental advantages as compared with other fossil fuels, greater thermal efficiency and the potential to detonate the national petrochemical industry. It also notes that changes in the long-term strategy is based on three factors, including the discovery and exploitation of natural gas reserves at low cost, mainly associated with the shale gas deposits in the North.The diagnosis indicates serious problems and challenges in the energy sector, which has reduced oil production in recent decades, although investments in this sector increased from 77.860 million pesos (USD 6.130 million) in 2000 to 251.900 million pesos (USD 19.834 million) in 2011. Mexico currently generates 80 percent of its energy from fossil fuels, 17 percent from renewable and hydroelectric resources, and 3 percent from nuclear power plants.

Among the goals of the National Energy Strategy, the document recalls the official commitment to produce 35% of non-fossil fuel energy in 2024, so it insists on the growing use of alternative energies.

If all goes as planned, Petroleos de Mexico, known as Pemex, will deploy two state-of-the-art drilling platforms in May to an area just south of the maritime boundary with the United States. One rig will sink awell in 9,514 feet of water, while another will drill in 8,316 feet of water, then deeper into the substrata.

Pemex has no experience drilling at such depths. Mexico's oil regulator is sounding alarm bells, saying the huge state oil concern is unprepared for a serious deepwater accident or spill. Critics say the company has sharply cut corners on insurance, remiss over potential sky-high liability. Mexico's plans come two years after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, the worst oil spill in U.S. history. On April 20, 2010, a semi-submersible rig that the British oil firm BP had contracted to drill a well known as Macondo exploded off the Louisiana coast, killing 11 workers and spewing 4.9 million barrels of oil in the nearly three months it took engineers to stop the spill.BP has said the tab for the spill including government fines, cleanup costs and compensation could climb to $42 billion for the company and its contractors.

Pemex's plans to sink even deeper offshore wells underscore Mexico's pressing need to maintain sagging oil production exports pay for one-third of government operating expenses along with oil companies' desire to leverage technology and drill at ever more challenging depths.

No experience Malkin 12 (In a Change, Mexico Reins In Its Oil Monopoly, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/business/energyenvironment/mexico-reins-in-oil-monopoly.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, ELISABETH MALKIN, Masters in international affairs from Columbia University, April 23, 2012) //EY The government relies on the companys oil revenue for as much as 40 percent of the national budget, taxing it so heavily that last year the company lost $6.5 billion on sales of $111.5 billion.

As long as oil gushed from Pemexs giant offshore fields, there seemed little reason for anyone to challenge the status quo. But production has declined since 2004, and the companys ability to find and exploit new sources of oilhas been cast into doubt.

The commission has closely tracked the Chicontepec project, on which Pemex has already spent nearly $9 billion. The regulators told the company that in its haste to meet ambitious production goals, it was drilling hundreds of new wells without studying the regions geology or the best recovery techniques.The criticism was quickly picked up by members of Congress.

The memory of the BP disaster there in 2010 is still fresh, and Mr. Zepeda is concerned that Pemex does not have enough experience to drill three new exploratory wells at depths of almost 10,000 feet more than twice the average depths it has been drilling in the region.Mr. Zepeda is also scrutinizing Pemexs plans to push deeper into the Gulf of Mexico.

Within a matter of days in mid-August, Petrleos Mexicanos (Pemex) suffered a pipeline fire, a refinery fire, a major offshore oil spill, and was forced to extend a critical alert on natural gas supplies.Pemex has served as Mexico's national oil company since its creation in 1938. Critics, including outgoing Mexican President Felipe Calderon, have suggested that the company will require major reforms to remain viable.

A fire broke out overnight on 13 August 2012 during an attempted theft of oil from a Pemex pipeline in the state of Hidalgo (Mexico). Although Pemex said the fire would have no effect on production, it is unclear whether distribution was disrupted. Such events are, unfortunately, commonplace, as, according to Pemex, up to 25,000 barrels (nearly 1 . 1 million gallons) of oil are lost to theft every day, countrywide. A fire occurred the following day, 14 August 2012, in a boiler at the hydro-desulfurization plant at Pemex's Madero refinery in northern Mexico. No injuries were reported, and production was not interrupted. The cause of the incidentremains under investigation. A "critical alert" that natural gas supplies would be unable to meet demand in central and western Mexico was announced by the company on Wednesday, 22 August 2012, and extended through Monday, 27 August 2012. Such alerts have recently become more frequent, as demand for natural gas has increased due to historically low prices. Although major consumers are typically left without gas for only one day, the recent shortage was aggravated when a pumping station in Veracruz (Mexico) was temporarily rendered inoperative after a lightning strike.

While these incidents might inconvenience consumers, Pemex has come under fire from local and international organizations alike for an 1 1 August 2012 spill off the coast of Salina Cruz, Oaxaca (Mexico) in the Gulf of Tehuantepec. The spill, which allegedly remained uncontrolled for 1 1 days, occurred when a floating oilstorage/loading buoy sank. According to estimates by the marine conservation group WiLDCOAST/COSTASALVAJE, around 4,750 gallons (113 barrels) of crude oil were spilled.

From the outset, Pemex has been criticized for its poor response to the spill. Mexico's federal environmental protection agency (Procuradura Federal de Proteccin al Ambiente, or PROFEPA) said that the company failed to report the spill until 10 days after it started, which "complicated the capacity to react to the accident on the part of agencies at all levels of government." In addition to failing to report the spill, Pemex apparently lacked the resources and/or training to respond appropriately. As a result, more than 19 kilometers (12 miles) of beach were tarred.

Approximately 1,500 barrels (63,000 gallons) reportedly leaked from a pipeline owned by Mexico's state-owned oil company, Petrleos Mexicanos (Pemex), in Veracruz State, Mexico, on 31 December 201 1. Crude oil raninto the Coatzacoalcos River, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Reports indicate that fish have been killed and wildlife injured from petroleum exposure. It appears that most of the oil is contained in a lagoon, but some oil washed into the river. Pemex

deployed approximately 140

contractors to clean up the spill. Authorities believe that two-thirds of the spilled oil has been recovered. Profepa, the Mexican environmental agency, is supervising the cleanup efforts. "Right now it is more about containing the emergency,"Profepa official Sergio Herrara said. "There will be further actions to clean the river, the banks of the river, and the zone where the damage has happened."

Pemex says that the pipeline breach was caused by vandalism, a rampant problem in Mexico, where thieves tap into pipelines to steal oil and natural gas to sell on the black market. The dangerous practice often results in oil spills. In December 2010, 28 people were killed and more than four dozen people were injured when crude oil spilled from a pipeline near Mexico City, Mexico as the result of such vandalism, and then exploded and caught fire (see OSIR, 23 December 2010).

No one knows if the deadly PEMEX explosion that damaged the lower floors of the building was an accident, negligence or sabotage by PEMEX workers, organized crime or leftist rebels. But the PEMEX explosion is not the first of its kind. PEMEX has a long history of corruption and accidents due to lack of maintenance and oversight. A natural gas plant exploded in 1984 killing 300 people; in 1992 a series of explosions in Guadalajara killed 200 people, and in 2012 an ocean rig exploded killing 30. In 2010 an oil pipeline explosion in Puebla that killed 28 was blamedon criminal gangs, while a 2012 explosion at a natural gas facility near the border in Tamaulipas was said to have been an accident. In 2007 several PEMEX oil and gas pipelines in various states were sabotaged by leftist rebels with the EPR, or Ejercito Popular Revolucionario.

Pemex CorruptPemex is known for its corruption Serra 11 (Why is Pemex so Hard to Modernize? An Analytical Framework Based on Congressional Politics, Gilles Serra, August 27, 2011,Prepared forthe seminar Poltica y Gobierno at CIDE, September 8, 2011, http://www.cide.edu/programas/PyG_2.3_SerraPolitics_of_energy_reform_in_Mexico.pdf) //EY

The union has created other types of inefficiencies. It serves as gatekeeper for new hiring, which has led to many instances of abuse and corruption. For example, it is known that the union sells new positions in Pemex for lucrative bribes charged on incoming employees. So, if there is a jobopening, the position might not go to the most qualified candidate, but it will probably go instead to someone who is well connected with a union leader and is prepared to pay a large fee. Many positions are effectively hereditary, as the union ensures they are smoothly transferred from father to son.

Mexico City, May 17 (EFE).- State-owned Petroleos Mexicanos admits that "serious" corruption exists in some areas of the company and that contracting processes in particular have been plagued by "interference from organized crime," a leading Mexican daily said Friday.In a front-page story, El Universal said Pemex representatives and members of the Mexican Construction Industry Chamber drew that conclusion at a meeting in late April.

Pemex executives acknowledged that corruption is fueled "by the elevated potential economic benefit of illegal acts, impunity and the spaces opened up due to unnecessary flexibility," the newspaper reported.

Billions of dollars are stolen by high ranking employees IRB 11 (Mexico: Corruption in the national oil company (Pemex); treatment of employees by management and union leaders; incidentsof violence against Pemex employees, 20 September 2011, IRB - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/203071/308024_en.html) //EY Corruption in Pemex

According to media sources, Pemex has a history of corruption (El Diario de Coahuila 10 July 2011; Contralnea 20 Feb. 2011). The Ministry of the Public Service states that Pemex is the [translation] "most corrupt entity" of the federal government (ibid.; Milenio 15 July 2010). According to Agencia EFE, a Spanish-language news agency, a Pemex Deputy Comptroller stated that between 2006 and 2010, within Pemex's largest unit, Pemex Exploracin y Produccin, there were 153 cases of fraud detected (Agencia EFE 5 July 2011). Of these cases, 57 occurred in 2010, and 14 cases occurred in 2009 (ibid.). The corruption reportedly includes: inflatingmultimillion dollar contracts, giving contracts in exchange for favours, and giving contracts without a license to friends (El Diario de Coahuila 10 July 2011). Agencia EFE also reports that contracts were given to unqualified firms (3 Feb. 2011). Other media sources indicate that

Pemex employees have helped criminal groups to steal fuel (Reuters 25 July 2011; LA Times 6 Sept. 2010).According to Agencia EFE, the government has attempted to combat corruption at Pemex by bringing in more specialized and skilled workers (5 July 2011) to strengthen the "organs of control" (4 July 2011). Payments between Pemex management and the STPRM

During 2008 and 2009, Pemex gave STPRM approximately 493 million pesos (38,083,018 Canadian Dollars (CAD) [XE.com 13 Sept. 2011]) as [translation] "help" for the union (El Universal 9 Feb. 2011; Exclsior 10 Feb. 2011). The national newspaper El Universal (El Universal n.d.) reports that according to Pemex, this money was used for expenses for celebrations such as the anniversary of petroleum expropriation and two first of May parades, economic support for the general executive committee, and contract costs associated with annual revisions to the collective agreement (9 Feb. 2011). According to a daily newspaper from Mexico City, Exclsior, the money

that Pemex sent to STPRM was used for travel expenses, financial support to the executive committee, and the promotion of cultural and sporting activities (10 Feb. 2011). Corruption in the STPRM and employee reactions

According to The New York Times, hundreds of millions of the union's dollars have gone to "unexplained benefits" (9 Mar. 2007). Mexican media sources indicate that Carlos Romero Deschamps, the leader of the STPRM (El Universal 18 Mar. 2011), has accumulated [translation] "inexplicable" wealth (El Maana 18 July 2010; El Siglo de Torren 19 July 2010). According to El Siglo de Torren, a news source operating in Torren(ABYZ News Links n.d.), Pemex workers have asked authorities to investigate Deschamps' wealth (El Siglo de Torren 19 July 2010). El Siglo de Torren reports that according to the coordinator of the group who requested the investigation, [translation] "workers

that have

questioned the financial situation of the leader have faced threats and harassment at their workplaces" (ibid.). Similarly, La Jornada, a newspaper based in Mexico City, indicates that there is [translation] "constant repressionagainst workers who oppose Romero Deschamps" (16 Aug. 2008c). The Energy Workers Front (Frente de Trabajadores de la Energa, FTE) of Mexico, a labour organization affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions (FTE n.d.), states that due to the [translation] "disproportionate economic and political power of the union leaders, many workers are submissive and powerless and do not act on injustices against them and their families" (ibid. 2008). Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. On 16 August 2008, several armed Pemex workers occupied Deschamps' office (FTE 2008; La Jornada 16 Aug. 2008a) to protest the [translation] "fraudulent" re-election of Deschamps, who was already the leader of the STPRM for 17 years (ibid.). Armed Deschamps supporters arrived and beat the protestors, forcing them out of the office (ibid.; FTE 2008). La Jornada states that Omar Toledo Aburto, the leader of the group that occupied Deschamps' office (16 Aug. 2008a), submitted a penal complaint against Deschamps for ordering that the protesters be "brutally beaten" (La Jornada 16 Aug. 2008b). Information on the status of the penal complaint could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. According to La Jornada, before the occupation, Toledo conducted a 19-day sit-in to revoke the leadership title from Deschamps (ibid.).

For decades, Petrleos Mexicanos was an undisputed source of Mexican pride. The state oil monopoly, whichwas founded in the tumult of the countrys 1938 nationalisation of the oil industry, became Latin Americas largest company by revenues and has long been a symbol of state paternalism for the countrys 112m population.

But in recent times, Pemex, which this year marks its 75th anniversary, has become better known for inefficiency, corruption and, above all, monumental losses. Add to that sharp production declines and Februarys tragic explosion at the companys headquarters, which killed 37, and visible cracks have appeared in the once-unchallenged idea that the behemoth cannot or should not be reformed.

However, the industry as a whole has refused to accept that what happened on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig reflected an industry-wide problem. Senior executives at other oil companies have issued statements saying that they would have designed the Macondo well differently and that the accident would not have happened had rig workers and their supervisors followed industry procedures, conducted adequate tests, and been properly trained.299 Perhaps this is one reason why the industryhas not yet acted on the Oil Spill Commissions recommendation to develop an independent safety organization modeled on the I nstitute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).300 Like its nuclear counterpart, such an organization might help the industry improve its overall safety record, promote a stronger safety culture within the industry, and develop performance objectives for individual companies.301 Nor

has the industry responded to the Commissions concern about decreased industry support for internal and external academic research, which has, among other things, decreased the availability of experienced personnel who can grasp the complexity of offshore operations and make quick and correct decisions.302

1NC economy DANew drilling collapses economy two reasons: Causes blowouts and cant stop them from spreading Boesch 12 (Deep-water drilling remains a risky business, Donald Boesch, Donald Boesch is president of the University of MarylandCenter for Environmental Science in Cambridge,17 April 2012, http://www.nature.com/news/deep-water-drilling-remains-a-risky-business1.10464) //EY

We were impressed by the technologies developed to produce hydrocarbons from ever deeper, more highly pressured formations, but surprised by the lack of sophistication in techniques for detecting and controlling risk, containing the flow of hydrocarbons, collecting spilled oil and protecting vulnerable resources. For example, 'down-hole' events those taking place deep below the seabed are often inferred from indirect measurements of pressure and volume rather than measured with state-of-the-art in situ sensors of the type used in geophysical research and other industries.Cement formulation, testing and placement major factors in the blowout seem to be more of an art than a science. Cementing is also central to debates on the increased recovery of hydrocarbons by hydro-fracturing, because it is critical both to limiting fugitive emissions of methane and to preventing contamination of shallower aquifers.

The 2010 accident showed that no operating company in the world had the capacity to rapidly contain a deep-water blowout. It took months of seat-of-the-pants engineering to build and deploy a capping stack that provided effective containment. Confusion reigned over the fate of the oil and gas released 1,500 metres below the surface, largely because of a lack of understanding of the operating environment, including the direction and speed of water currents, and the behaviour of hydrocarbons released at depth.

Drilling is expensive and costs more after each oil spill Phillips 10 (A Three Mile Island for Offshore Oil?,Apr 29, 2010, Matthew Phillips,http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/a-three-mile-island-for-offshore-oil.html) //EY Continuing to develop the Gulf of Mexico is predicated on our ability to venture farther out, and drill deeper down.

But this spill destroysat least for the near termthe notion that the oil industry has conquered the technological challenges posed by deepwater drilling. And as history shows, all it takes is one big disaster to alter the future of an entire industry. This could be the equivalent of Three Mile Island for offshore oil, says Rubin, referring to thenuclear plant meltdown in 1979 that essentially halted the nuclear industrys growth for 30 years. At the very least, the cost of operating in the Gulf of Mexico will likely go up. Stiffer regulation from the Minerals Management Services will make sure of that. So will higher insurance premiums. The spill will likely cost BP several hundred million dollars, and tarnish its safety reputation. In 2005, 15 workers died in a Texas refinery explosion. BP will surely face fines for the Deep Horizon accident. Its stock price is down 17 percent since the Deep Horizon rig, has seen its stock price fall 22 percent.

accident occurred. Transocean, the company that owned the

Destroys the economy a single spill costs more than 100 billion Krupnick et al 11 (Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Deepwater Oil Drilling Regulation, Alan Krupnick, Resources for theFuture; Sarah E. Campbell Resources for the Future; Mark A. Cohen, Resources for the Future; Vanderbilt University - Strategy and Business Economics; Vanderbilt University - Law School; Ian W. H. Parry, Resources for the Future, January 12, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1744203) //EY

Natural Resource and Economic Damages from Catastrophic Spills Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the expected damages from a catastrophic deepwater oil spill, prior data on oil spills provide some information on the range and worst-case scenario for damages from such a spill. Cohen (1986) analyzed the U.S. Coast Guards spill data from 1973 to estimate the fraction of oil spill volume that leads to a particular impact. For example, 59.7 percent of total spill volume was reported to have an effect on fish and the fishing industry (including fin fish, shellfish, sport fishing, commercial fisheries and hatcheries,

and other marine biota), 51.5 percent was reported to have an effect on water supply (which includes municipal drinking water and water intake systems for municipalities, industry, and agriculture), 16.5 percent was reported to have an effect on birds, and 0.7 percent on recreation. Based

on these data and estimates of the cost per gallon of each type of impact, Cohen (1986) estimated the average natural resource and economic damages of an oil spill to be $3.00 per gallon spilled in 1981, or $7.50 in 2010 dollars. This average value, however, tells us little about worst-case damages from a catastrophic spill. Helton and Penn (1999) examined 30 large spills between 1984 and 1997 for which they could obtain natural resource damage payments as well as other measures of financial costs, including recovery costs, federal and state trustee costs, scientific assessment, litigation costs, third-party claims, and other costs such as salvage and repair costs, delay and additional operating costs, and lost or damaged cargo costs (Helton and Penn 1999). Although their measure of total financial costs is different from the definition of social damages used here (since many of these costs are private and internal to the responsible party), they report a range of costs from $1 to as much as $937 per gallon in 1990. They further report an average cost of $278 in 1990, or about $465 in 2009 dollars. The average natural resource damage payments for the 28 spills for which data on both spill size and natural resource damage payments were available was $40.36 per gallon in 1990 (with a range of $0.07 to$375), or about $66.20 in 2009 dollars. 31 These costs are not representative of all spills and instead represent a highly selected group based on the availability of natural resource damages (which Helton and Penn note are calculated in less than 1 percent of all spills). Helton and Penn (1999) based their figures on actual dollars paid. The

Exxon Valdez natural resource damage compensation was about $1.1 billion, making that spill only the third largest natural resource damage estimate on a per-gallon basis. However, a major national survey done shortly after the spill (Carson et al. 2003) found that publicwillingness to pay to avoid a similar incident in the future was $2.8 billion to $7.2 billion in 1990, or $4.6 billion to $11.8 billion in 2009 dollars. Adding an estimated $600 million in economic damages paid to private parties (Cohen 2010a), or about $984 million in 2009 dollars, the externalities imposed by the Exxon Valdez are estimated to range from $5.6 billion to $12.8 billion, or $509 to $1,163 per gallon, in 2009 dollars. This would make the Exxon Valdez the most costly in terms of damage caused per gallon for a large spill off U.S. waters to date.

Based on Cohens (1986) average spill damage figure, the natural resource damages from the 205.8 million gallons of oil spilled by the Deepwater Horizon would exceed $1.5 billion, but based on Helton and Penn (1999) would be $13.6 billion. These figures do not include cleanup costs or compensation to private parties that have incurred economic losses. Scaling the Exxon Valdez per gallon estimates to the Deepwater Horizon spill would give a damage estimate ranging from $105 billion to $239 billion a figure that includes both natural resource damages and economic damages to private parties. This isconsidered a worst-case estimate of the damages caused by a catastrophic spill when we analyze the potential costs and benefits of deepwater drilling in Section 5.

It is important to emphasize that this is an estimate of external social damagesit excludes the private cleanup and containment costs incurred by the industry. However, itincludes an estimate of total natural resource damages, not just those that are ultimately paid for by the responsible parties.

1NC Oceans DABlowout causes rigs to capsize, and causes oil spills turns the aff Stren 07 (Offshore Blow-out Accidents - An Analysis of Causes of Vulnerability ExposingTechnological Systems to Accidents, Thomas G Stren , Univesity of Oslo , Universite Louis Pasteur , Assessing and communicating risks, 2007 p8) //EY Still the potential of a major disastrous accident is evident. There are three major problems with blowouts that can cause grave dangers. The first is that the gas or vapours from leaking oil can ignite and burn/explode. Such explosions can cause major destruction to platforms/rigs and lead to loss of substantial number of lives. The other major danger is that major streams of leaking gas can erode the sea-bed under those types of platforms standing on the sea-floor and cause them to tilt over. The third problem with potential for disaster is that major gas leaks into the water can cause a floating rig/ship to get stability problems and cause the rig/ship to capsize or sink. Only ship collisions, structural breakdowns andexplosions in onboard process facilities rank equal to blow-outs as accident with potential disastrous destructive consequences to a rig/platform.

natural seepages contribute more hydrocarbons to the marine environment by volume,the quick influx and concentration of oil during a spill makes them especially harmful to localized marine organisms and communities. Plants and animals that become coated in oil perish from mechanical smothering, birds die from hypothermia as their feathers lose their waterproofing, turtles die after ingesting oil-coated food, and animals become disoriented and exhibit other behavior changes after breathing volatile organic compounds. When emitted into the marine environment, oil, produced water, and drilling muds may adversely impact an entire population by disrupting its food chain and reproductive cycle. Marine estuaries are especiallysusceptible, as hydrocarbons and other toxins tend to persist in the sediments where eggs and young often begin life. However, the severity and effects of oil exposure vary by concentration, season, and life stage. The oil spill from the Ixtoc 1 blowout threatened a rare nesting site of the Kemps Ridley sea turtle, an endangered species. Field and laboratory data on the nests of turtle eggs found a significant decrease in survival of hatchlings, and some hatchlings had developmental deformities(Milton, Lutz & Shigenaka, 2003).

Marine organisms that live near an existing or sealed wellhead or an oil spill area experience persistent exposure to a complex web of hydrocarbons, petroleum-degrading microbes, and toxic substances associated with drilling muds and produced water. Abundance and diversity of marine life, especially those living near or in the seabed, decline. The growth and reproduction rates of entire populations that live in the water column may decline for months after a spill(Peteiro, Barro, Labarta, & FerodezFeiriz, 2006), natural defense mechanisms necessary to deal with disease (immune suppression) become compromised (Song et al., 2008), and genetic mutations may occur. Many of these toxins(e.g., arsenic, chromium, mercury, and PAH) move up the food chain and biomagnify, i.e., increase in concentration. One of the most disturbing trends is the evidence that common hydrocarbon contaminants(e.g., PAH) act as endocrine disrupters. Endocrine disrupters are chemicals that can act as hormones or antihormones in aquatic ecosystems, thus disrupting normal reproductive and developmental patterns(McLachlan, 2000). Evidence also suggeststhat polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), a known carcinogen, also exhibit theseendocrine effects(ATSDR, 2001).

Extinction Kraig 3 Robert Kraig, Prof Law @ Indiana Univ., McGeorge Law Review Vol. 34, 2003, Taking StepsThe world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable . "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean andcoastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20

this situation gets worse due to the age of the oil facilities, their lack of maintenance, as well as clandestine oil valves that have caused chronic spills of already weathered oil (Rivera-Cruz et al., 2005) which contains compounds of high molecular weight, endangering the resources sustainability. The affected states with the highest number of environmental emergencies occurred in Mexico are Veracruz, Campecheand Tabasco, representing 78.7% of the events related to PEMEX activities mainly because of its deteriorated pipelines, clandestine oil valves, corrosion and mechanical impacts (PEMEX, 2003; Olivera-Villaseor & Rodrguez-Castellanos, 2005).

The water bodies and the coastal zone are also affected by wastes derived from oil exploring, offshore production, sea and submarine transportation, shipment and storage operations, accidents during operations such as submarine oil pipes cracks, tankers accidents, spill outs and explosions at oil rigs(Garca-Cullar et al., 2004; Mei & Yin, 2009). During the seventies, Mexico developed oil exploitation technology and intensified its crude oil production and transportation via underwater pipelines to cargo floating buoys to storage ports located at Tabasco, as well as the oils transformation and refining at Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, and Salina Cruz. As a consequence, this created industrial networks all over the country that raised pollution issues at coastal zones, thus impacting the ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific southeast coast (Carbajal & Chavira, 1985; Botello, 1996; Gonzlez-Lozano et al., 2006; Salazar-Coria et al., 2007). Nevertheless, conscience was

not made until the IXTOC-I accident regarding the potential risks of the industrys activities (Jernelv,2010). Currently the main oil and gas production zone is located at the Gulf of Mexico, in the Campeche maritime zone where there are severely affected ecosystems after more than three decades of oil exploitation (Garca-Cullar et al., 2004). The last Gulf of Mexico disaster was estimated three times that of the Valdez spill (Trevors & Saier, 2010). On the other hand, in Mexico was installed the first and largest oil refinery (until 2004) in Latin America, dating from 1908; the environmental deterioration is evident after more than one hundred years of oil exploitation.

The effects are observed at the lower Coatzacoalcos River (Toledo, 1995; Gonzlez-Mille et al., 2010) as it has suffered the impacts of the oil refining and transportation processes since the swamp areas surrounding the oil refinery are used as waste traps. In addition, accidents related to carelessness during the load and cleaning of the tankers, as well as the discharge of the cooling water from the Minatitln refinery into the river have created a complex mixture of hazardous materials that pollute the lower Coatzacoalcos River area directly, affecting both the fishing resources and the inhabitants (Toledo, 1983; Rosales-Hoz. & Carranza-Edwards,1998; Cruz-Orea et al, 2004; Ruelas-Inzunza et al, 2009; Ruelas-Inzunza et al., 2011). Concurrently, we must 2007a). With

add the petrochemical activity to the oil exploring and refining processes (Rao et al., the creation of petrochemical complexes since 1960, these activities increased the impact of the area conditioning where the industrial zones were located (Ortiz et al., 2005). Additionally, huge amounts ofmaterials were dredged in order to build the artificial dock of Pajaritos. The industrial plants operation, the numerous transportation networks (petrochemical ducts and pipelines) and the linking earth systems built at the lower areas caused other activities with an environmental impact for the zone (Toledo, 1995; Adams et al., 2008). Another

environmental effect of the intensity of the oil exploitation has been the loss of swamps, mangroves, and other elements of the water coastal systems that must be attended given its importance for the environmental services (Gutirrez & Zavala,2002; Bahena-Manjarrez et al., 2002).

Oil spills are hard to clean up and clean up substances are toxic Babcock 12 (A Risky Business: Generation of Nuclear Power and Deepwater Drilling for Offshore Oil and Gas, Hope M. Babcock*, *Hope M. Babcock is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where she teaches environmental law, February 2012 http://www.columbiaenvironmentallaw.org/assets/pdfs/37.1/CJEL_37.1_Babcock.pdf COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 37:1], pg 77) //EY

The Deepwater Horizon accident lasted for 152 days and spilled nearly five million barrels of oil into the Gulf before the well was finally plugged in Septembertwo months after BP capped the well.70 The oil spread to the eastern Gulf and Pensacola, Florida (as well as to other areas of Floridas western shoreline), and occasional tar balls floated as far west as Texas coastline.71 The spills immediate impact on the marine environmentwas devastating; as of November 1, 2010, wildlife responders had collected 8,183 oiled birds, 1,444 endangered sea turtles, and 109 marine mammals.72 Some of these animals were dead,73 and others will likely have shortened life spans.74 Nesting areas for birds75 and sea turtles76 were likely destroyed, as were food sources for many of the affected species.77 Oyster beds were damaged and closed, and the long-term impact on oysters (a keystone species),78 blue crabs, and other shellfish, as well as their larvae, has yet to be dete rmined.79 Several large estuarine-dependent fish species, including a wide variety of sharks, game fish, such as swordfish, marlin, and tuna, and many important Gulf fish, such as red snapper, grouper, black drum, and mahi-mahi, may have been affected by the spill.80 The spill also blanketed approximately forty percent of the offshore waters used by larvae of the northern Gulfestuarine dependent species,81 and may have affected twenty percent of bluefin tuna larvae in 2010, further placing at risk an already severely overfished species.82

Many wetland areas and beaches remained oiled long after the well was capped.83 Nearly eight months after the spill, a centimeterthick residue of oil still covered large areas of the deep-sea floor in the vicinity of the blowout, continuing to kill bottom-dwelling creatures like worms.84 Although the actual amount of oil remaining in the water was disputed in the days following the accident,85 there was no dispute about the underwater plume of hydrocarbons in the vicinity of the spill, which thePresidents Oil Spill Commission calculated to be 35 kilometers long, 200 kilometers high, and 2 kilometers wide, at a depth of approximately 1,100 meters.86 The

release of toxic chemicals with the spill and the use of chemical dispersants at the well site may yet have an adverse effect on the deep-sea ecosystem.87 Oil dropletsremained in the water column and spots of oil could be observed on the sea floor as late as August 2011, even though little surface evidence of the spill could be seen in the Gulf and the immediate shoreline appeared cleaner.88 The closing of vast areas of the Gulf to fishing, the pall that remained over the safety of Gulf fish and shellfish after fishing, crabbing, and shrimping resumed, and the effect on tourism in an area that heavily depends on it89 devastated the regions economy.90 The s ocial and psychological toll on families, especially children, who had only recently recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, is also expected to be great.91 Tribal

and immigrant fishing communities have been especially hard hit.92 The extent of the long-term damage to wildlife populations, especially to endangered species, and the capacities of the Gulf ecosystems to restore themselves are unknown,93 as are the capacities of Gulf Coast communities to rebuild and recover economically.94 What is known, however, is that the impact of the oil spill will outlast the cleanup efforts and other visible reminders of the accident; as one professor of oceanography stated: These things reverberate through the ecosystem . . . . It is an ecological echo chamber, and I think well be h earing the echoes of this, ecologically, for the rest of my life.

Increases pollutants in water also increases salinity Tribal Energy and Evvironmental Information Clearinghouse No Date(Oil and GasDrilling/Development Impacts, The Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse, http://teeic.anl.gov/er/oilgas/impact/drilldev/index.cfm ) //EY Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)

Impacts to water resources could occur due to water quality degradation from increases in turbidity (glossary term) , sedimentation, and salinity (glossary term) ; spills; cross-aquifer (glossary term) mixing;and water quantity depletion. During the drilling/development phase, water would be required for dust control, making concrete, consumptive use by the construction crew, and in drilling of wells. Depending on availability, it may be trucked in from off-site or obtained from local groundwater (glossary term) wells or nearby surface water bodies. Where surface waters are used to meet drilling and development needs, depletion of stream flows could occur. Drilling

and well development often remove enormous amounts of groundwater, referred to as produced water. The generation of produced water can create several problems: water may be depleted from nearby aquifers; and produced groundwater that is saline or contaminated with drilling fluids can contaminate soils or surface waters, if brought to the

surface and not reinjected to a suitable subsurface unit. Produced water

also may contain organic acids, alkalis, diesel oil, crankcase oils, and acidic stimulation fluids (e.g., hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids).Drilling activities may affect surface and groundwater flows. If a well is completed improperly such that subsurface formations are not sealed off by the well casing (glossary term) and cement, aquifers can be impacted by other non-potable formation waters. The interaction between surface water and groundwater may also be affected if the two are hydrologically connected, potentially resulting in unwanted dewatering (glossary term) or recharging (glossary term) . Soils compacted on existing roads, new access roads, and well pads generate more runoff than undisturbed sites. The increased runoff could lead to slightly higher peak storm flows into streams, potentially increasing erosion of the channel banks. The increased runoff could also lead to more efficient sediment (glossary term) delivery and increase turbidity during storm events. During

development, water quality can be affected by: Activities that cause soil erosion or dust that can be washed into water bodies; Weathering of newly exposed soils, causing leaching (glossary term) and oxidation that can release chemicals into the water; Discharges of waste or sanitary water; Use of herbicide (glossary term) and dust suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride); and Contaminant spills. Also, increased sediment loading could potentially increase salinity levels. Primary waste during production is produced water, which can comprise 98% of material brought to the surface. Conventional natural gas wells typically produce less water than oil wells. Substances found in high concentrations in produced water include chloride, sodium, calcium, magnesium, and potassium. Other contaminants can include PAHs, lead, arsenic, barium, antimony, sulfur, zinc, and NORM. Other wastes include residual wastes that remain after separation of the oil and natural gas.

Drilling wastes include hydraulic fluids, pipe dope, used oils and oil filters, rigwash, spilled fuel, drill cuttings, drums and containers, spent and unused solvents, paint and paint washes, sandblast media, scrap metal, solid waste, and garbage. Wastes associated with drilling fluids (glossary term) include oil derivatives (e.g., such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (glossary term) , spilled chemicals, suspended and dissolved solids (glossary term) , phenols, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and drilling mud (glossary term) additives (including potentially harmful contaminants such as chromate and barite). Adverse impacts could result if hazardous wastes (glossary term) are not properly handled and are released to the environment. Produced water (glossary term) (water that coexists with oil and gas in the formation and is recovered during well development) generation can be an issue during the drilling/development phase, although it usually becomes a greater waste management concern over the long-term operation of an oil or gas field because water production typically increases with the age of the production well. One exception to this is the drilling and development of coalbed methane (glossary term) reserves; produced wateris generated at high volumes during the initial completion and development of coalbed methane wells and then declines considerably as methane (glossary term) production increases. Regulations govern the disposal of this produced water; the

majority of it is disposed of by underground injection either in disposal wells (glossary term) or, in mature producing fields, in enhanced oil recovery wells (i.e., wells by which produced water and other materials are injected into a producingformation in order to increase formation pressure and production).

In some locations, produced water may carry naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) (glossary term) to the surface. Typically, the NORM radionuclides (primarily radium-226, radium-228, and their progeny) are dissolved in the produced water but a portion of the NORM can precipitate into solid form in scales and sludges (glossary term) that collect in pipelines and storage vessels. Proper management of NORM-bearing produced water and solid wastes is critical to prevent both

occupational and public human health risks and environmental contamination. NORM wastes are a problemgenerally associated with long-term operation of an oil or gas field, but can also be associated with the drilling/development phase. The NORM Technology Connection Web site provides information about the regulation of NORM bearing wastes generated by the petroleum (glossary term) industry

Drilling Fluids. Drilling muds and cuttings are of environmental concern because of their potential toxicity and the large volume that are discharged during drilling. Three types occur, including oil-based (OBM; diesel or mineral oilserves as base fluid), water-based (WBM), and synthetic-based muds(SBM).The EPA (1999)requires zero discharge of OBMto dispose,OBM is shipped to onshore oil field waste sites or injected into disposal wells atsea. WBM and SBM typically contain arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, and zinc (ContinentalShelf Associates,Inc, 2007). Barium and barium compounds are used in drilling muds because they act as lubricants and increase the density of mud, thereby sealing gases in the well.

Drilling in deep water(>1,000 ft) uses rotary bits that chip through thousands of feet of rock to access oil and gas deposits. Diesel-powered engines provide the power to operate the drilling rig and drive the drill. As paraphrased from Continental Shelf Associates,Inc.(2007),the general sequence of events entails initial open hole drilling where a drill bit positioned within a drill pipe chips away at the ocean floor. Asthe drill bit spins, mud (WBM) and water are forced at high velocity around the drill bit to force rock chips(cuttings) up and outto the seabed. After a known distance, the drill bit and pipe are removed and a wellhead isinstalled.WBM is typically discharged and replaced with SBM. Additionally, a marine riser system is connected to the wellhead to return fluids, muds, andcuttingsto the drill rig where they are separated. Cuttings are discharged in a plume from the platform, and mud is recycled back to the drill bit(Figure 1).

The oil toxicity in the marine environment is very complex due to the great diversity of factors intervening during an environmental risk event. When oil is spilled or introduced to the marine ecosystem (Mercer & Trevors, 2011), it becomes weathered (Fig. 6), during which several processes take place, such asthe evaporation of the volatile compounds, dispersion by means of waves, winds and turbulences (Chang et al., 2011), emulsification, which constitutes the main cause of the persistence of light and medium crude oils on the sea surface, dilution depending of the crude oil type, temperature, turbulence and dispersion, sedimentation or sinking of the particles by adhesion to the sediments or organic matter, and biodegradation (Botello, 1995; Nikolopoulou & Kalogerakis, 2010; Prince, 2010). In Mexico, the Tonal River in Veracruz and the Laguna de Trminos in Campeche have shown the highest levels of dissolved hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico (Botello et al., 1996).

Regarding the hydrocarbons assessment in the lower Coatzacoalcos River basin, the classical works of Botello & Pez (1986) are outstanding since they found the highest polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) levels at the zones of fixed discharges or of intense oil activity (Garc a-Ruelas et al., 2004). Other studiesdetermined the presence of PAH on 19 organic species such as fish, crustaceans and mollusks (sea bass, native sea bream, scallop and prawns) and the presence of benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(ghi)perylene, which are the most hazardous given its carcinogenic potential (Sharma et al., 2002). On

the other hand, oil refinement and processing also contribute to broadening the range of toxicity caused to the fishing industry. The marine oil pollution effects are harder to estimate (Trevors & Saier, 2010), since there is no information previous to the beginning of the oil-industry activities over the effects on the ecosystems and its components; as a consequence, it is not possible to measure the magnitude of the oil industry in the marine seaway. Additionally, it hasnot been possible to determine the chronic effects of pollution over the ecosystems since the data available is very precise in a given time and determined concentrations (Garca-Cullar et al., 2004). Currently, there are studies proving the existence of considerable disturbances in the environment (Scarlett et al., 2007; Denoyelle et al., 2012); however, it is important to highlight that pollutants bioaccumulate in water organisms destined to human consumption (Webb, 2011).

Oil Spills Have Lasting Ecological Impacts According to the National Academy of Sciences, current cleanup methods can only remove a small fraction of the oil spilled into the ocean, leaving the remaining oil to continue affecting ocean ecosystems over time.9 Scientists investigating the long-term impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill estimate that nearly 20,000 gallons of oilfrom that spill remain in Prince William Sound, continuing to harm threatened and endangered species and undermine their recovery.10

Marine mammals, sea birds, fish, shellfish, and other sea life are extremely vulnerable to oil pollution and the long-term toxic effects can impair reproductive success for generations. Studies have shown that tinyamounts of oilas little as one part per billioncan harm pink salmon and cause their eggs to fail.11

Spills Aside, Drilling Operations are a Major Source of Pollution In addition to environmental damage from oil spills, the routine operations associated with offshore drilling produce many toxic wastes and other forms of pollution. For example, each drill well generates tens of thousands of gallons of waste drilling muds (materials used to lubricate drill bits and maintain pressure) and cuttings.12 Drilling muds contain toxic metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium that may bioaccumulate and biomagnify in marine organisms, including in our seafood supply.13 The water that is brought up from a given well along with oil and gas, referred to as produced water, contains its own toxic brew of benzene, arsenic, lead, toluene, and varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. Each oil platform can discharge hundreds of thousands of gallons of this produced water daily, contaminating both local waters and those down current from the discharge.14 An average oil and gas exploration well spews roughly50 tons of nitrogen oxides, 13 tons of carbon monoxide, 6 tons of sulfur oxides, and 5 tons of volatile organic chemicals.15

Drilling Exploration Activities Harm Marine Life Seismic surveys designed to estimate the size of an oil and gas reserve generate their own environmental problems. To carry out such surveys, ships tow multiple airgun arrays that emit thousands of high-decibel explosiveimpulses to map the seafloor.16 The auditory assault from seismic surveys has been found to damage or kill fish eggs and larvae and to impair the hearing and health of fish, making them vulnerable to predators and leaving them unable to locate prey or mates or communicate with each other. These disturbances disrupt and displace important migratory patterns, pushing marine life away from suitable habitats like nurseries and foraging, mating, spawning, and migratory corridors.17 In

addition, seismic surveys have been implicated in

whale beaching and stranding incidents.18 Offshore Drilling Results in Onshore DamageOffshore drilling requires the construction of significant onshore infrastructure such as new roads, pipelines, and processing facilities, which are often built on formerly pristine beaches.

Thanks in part to drilling operations, Louisiana is losing roughly 24 square miles of coastal wetlands each year, eating away at natural storm barriers and increasing the risks of storm damage, including damage from oil spills.19

My own rationale for asking the IWC to decide to adopt a management regime of permanent protection for whales from consumptive commercial exploitation on a global basis is both simple and complex. It is grounded in pragmatic practicalities of both fact and feeling regarding 'Whales in a Modern World'. I am not here arguing for the sanctity of all life on earth. I am not advocating equal rights for all animal species. I am seeking to set forth arational and moral basis for a future determination by one, specialised, international, human agency that one order of marine mammals should be managed in this manner. Why

whales? My rationale most simply is that whales are uniquely special! They really are in a class by themselves. Let me cite four major categories of uniqueness. First, whales are biologically special.

Whales include by far the largest animals on earth, growing to be over 30 metres in length - the blue whale (Balenoptera musculus). Whales include the possessors of by far the largest brain of any creature ever to have lived on our planet, weighing four or five times as much as the human brain - the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Whales include the creators of the most complex, long - lasting, repetitive sound patterns of any non - human animal - the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). And whales include species (Tursiops truncatus and some other odontocetes) which exceed humans and all other groups as well in convolutedness or fissurisation of the cerebral cortex. Marine mammal veterinarian Sam Ridgway, of the U.S. Naval Ocean Systems Centre in San Diego, has reported findings that the bottlenose dolphin, in particular, by a variety of measurements (encephalisation quotient, volume of cortex, ratio of brain weight to spinal cord weight, etc.) ranks just below humans and considerably above other higher primates, including gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans. In all these ways whales are truly unique biologically! Second, whales are ecologically special. Whales have evolved as marine mammals over millions of years, with both baleen and toothed whales probably appearing up to 25 million years ago, long before the development of human beings and the latter's intrusion in the ocean ecosystem. Whales

are at the top of the vast food chain of the sea. Baleen whales consume the largest amount of zooplankton, and the killer whale (Orcinus orca) is the world's greatest nonhuman predator. Whales affect the ocean ecosystem in a uniquely global manner, and any exploitation of other marine resources, whether krill or fish, must uniquely take into account cetaceans. Human life depends upon a proper balance in the amount of oxygen in earth's atmosphere produced from the plankton that is kept in check most critically by whale consumption.

Salazars watch, the Department of the Interior has treated the Gulf of Mexico as a sacrifice zone where laws are disregarded and wildlife protection takes a backseat to oil-company profits, said MiyokoSakashita, oceans director at the Center. Even after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, the feds are still violating the laws intended to protect the Gulfs wildlife in their rush to approve offshore oil activities.

Seismic exploration surveys, used by oil companies to search for oil, generate sounds loud enough to cause hearing loss in marine mammals, can disturb essential behaviors such as feeding and breeding, and mask communications between individual whales and dolphins. Seismic surveys are nearly as loud as explosives, and can displace whales from important feeding areas. Several types of marine mammals are at risk in the Gulf of Mexico, including endangered sperm whales, manatees and bottlenose dolphins.

Sperm whales, which can weigh up to 60 tons and reach 60 feet in length, reside year-round in the Gulf of Mexico. Their strong attraction to specific areas for breeding and feeding may override any tendency for them to avoid noxious oil, and several whales have already been spotted swimming through oily, contaminated waters. Inhalation of oil droplets, vapors and fumes is only one of the serious risks posed to sperm whales by oil spills. With a population already depleted from a long-history of being hunted for their oil, this leviathan cant afford losses from the oil that continues to gush into Gulf waters.

Due to their diving habits, sperm whales are vulnerable to disturbance from oil exploration, industrial development and associated shipping. Direct oil exposure also poses hazards to these animals. Contrary to some reports, whales do not necessarily avoid oil slicks or contaminated habitats. Whales have been seen swimming and feeding in or near oil. The animals strong attraction to specific areas for breeding or feeding may override any tendency for them to avoid the noxious oil. Weathered or tar-like oil residues also pose long-term risks to whales. Research indicate that inhalation of oil droplets and vapor; gastrointestinal ulceration and hemorrhaging due to ingestion of oil during feeding; eye and skin lesions from continuous exposure to oil; weight loss due to restricted diet and stress from oil exposure; and behavioral changes.Indirect effects Oil development is often associated with the release of a wide variety of other contaminants into the environment. In the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, additional contaminant risk is posed by dispersants used to break up the oil. By BPs own account, it has mobilized a third of the worlds supply of dispersants, including Corexit, to treat this spill. Dispersants

can cause genetic mutations and cancer, further adding to the cumulative effects of oil toxicity. Levels of mercury, cadmium and other marine contaminants are already high enough in sperm whale tissue to raise concerns about reproductive impairment in this species.

2NC Whales Impacts

Theyre a keystone species One World Wildlife No date(monitoring whales, dolphins and turtles in the mediterranean, One World Wildlife, no date,http://www.oneworldwildlife.org/what_we_do/projects/current/mediterranean//EY

Sperm whales are a keystone species in many deep ocean ecosystems. Hunted almost to extinction (in 1964, 29,255 sperm whales were killed), there has been a significant disruption to the male-to-female ratio and a heavily reduced birth rate. In recent years, the increased number of strandings, thought to be due to the use ofdrift nets and military sonar, is causing grave concern within the conservation community. Developed by fishermen out of a desire to secure ever-increasing profit margins, drift nets have proved to be one of the most destructive fishing practices of all time. Drift nets (often referred to as "the wall of death") catch everything in their path, playing havoc with the ocean's ecology and natural harmony.

Extinction Diner 1994 (Judge Advocates Generals Corps of US Army, David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161,)No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In

past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefitsto mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically

diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric canresist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing

widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss

Environmental Justice If significant impacts were to occur in any of the resource areas and these were to disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations, there could be an environmental justice (glossary term) impact. It is anticipated that the development could benefit low-income, minority, and tribal populations by creating job opportunities and stimulating local economic growth via project revenues and increased tourism. However, noise, dust, visual impacts, and habitat destruction could have an adverse affect on traditional tribal lifeways and religious and cultural sites. Development of wells and ancillary facilities could affect the natural character of previously undisturbed areas and transform the landscape into a more industrialized setting . Development activities could impact the use of cultural sites for traditional tribal activities (hunting and plant-gathering activities, and areas in which artifacts, rock art, or other significant cultural sites are located).

Its a moral imperative to vote neg and save indigenous culture cultural extinction also ensures environmental destruction Solo 1992, Pam, executive director, CULTURAL SURVIVAL QUARTERLY, Spring 1992 p. 1.As the next millennium approaches, Cultural Survival hopes to take that lesson toward a second wave of political action that will help turn around relations between North and South, just as ordinary citizens helped reverse the tide of East-West relations. But while Western

movements have focused on the weapons of war, the politics of the 1990s will center on a single interlocking agenda; human rights, the environment, and development. At its heart are some 600 million indigenous people. Their fate is a pathway and litmus test of our progress toward a peaceful and sustainable world order. From the periphery of political, economic and social power, they are moving to the center of world attention. Our survival depends on ensuring that no one, particularly the poorest of the poor is thrown out of the canoe or viewed as dispensable. This is a moral and a practical imperative. Readers of Cultural Survival Quarterly know this well. On the practical side, indigenous peoples live in the worlds last wild places, sheltering much of the worlds genetic heritage. By helping native peoples save themselves, we help them protect fragile environments on which we all ultimately depend. We need them for their part of the canoe to be cared for. But we also just need them to be-as human beings with a culture, a history and a hoped-for common future as a people. That is the moral imperative. It is past time to begin addressing this fundamental issue:human rights and the ability of human beings to discover ways to live together in plural societies. We want At the Threshold to he lp foster that process in communities throughout the United Sates. We invite your involvement, your ideas, and your time. What must be done? What is our role at the local level? How can we cause governments and business, schools and churches and community organizations to advance human rights, protect and conserve fragile resources, and address the conditions that condemn too many to choose between environmental degradation and endless poverty? The job will not be easy, nor will it be accomplished overnight, but this is the time to act Indian organizations are stronger and better organized than ever, indigenous

peoples themselves are defining and leading movements for their rights. They are also looking to first-world activities as allies and partners in a new alliance. Cross cultural collaboration will join more familiar forms of political action, even if centuries of colonialism and ensuing powerlessness have left a legacy of distrust and poverty that complicates this alliance.

2NC genocide Impacts

Genocide is a process, not an event. Rosenberg 12 (Sheri P. Rosenberg, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, "Genocide Is a Process, Not an Event", GenocideStudies and Prevention, Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 2012, http://muse.jhu.edu.turing.library.northwestern.edu/journals/genocide_studies_and_prevention/v007/7.1.rosenberg.html)phol Among the categories of inquiry, there

has been a thread of scholarship explicitly dedicated to exploring the genocidal process and the implications that flow from deducing a particularized understanding of it.5 The genocidal process is a relatively indeterminate term, and it is the notion of the complex genocidal process that will be the focus of this article, which urges renewed attention to exploring the socialphenomenon of genocide as a process rather than as the outcome of a process. The rigid conception of genocide as a definition (as opposed to a social phenomenon) of something against which unfolding events are to be measured is in part due to the very success and st anding of the concept in international law. The emphasis on legalism subjects each genocide to a rigid test in order to maintain the integrity of the term and determine criminal culpability. This, however,

has caused some authors and policy makers to lose sight of the fact that genocide is a fluid and complex social phenomenon, not a static term. This process perspective is crucial to the detection and standardization of early warning indicators for the prevention of genocide, a goal which many genocide scholars seek to pursue.6 As Bloxham and Moses argue, the focus on specifictypes of outcomes that qualify as genocide is analogous to studying the peaks of mountains from above a cloud-line that only particularly tall mountains penetrate, when a glimpse beneath the cloud-line would illustrate that other mountains fall just short.7 Hence,

if one focuses on how the process of genocide unfolds and the acts that are often perpetrated on the victimboth indirectly and directlyduring the genocidal process, then one might begin to link these preliminary or early acts to the efforts of genocide prevention. Moreover, a process-oriented approach provideslawyers and jurists with a lens through which to interpret the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNCG). This approach aids in the interpretation of the UNCGs dual goals of prevention and punishment.

Voting aff means you are complicit with genocide you have a moral obligation to vote neg Vetleson, 2k (Arne Johan, Department of Philosophy University of Oslo, , "Genocide: A Case for the Responsibility of the Bystander",Journal of Peace Research, July, p. 520-522)

Most often, in cases of genocide, for every person directly victimized and killed there will be hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions, who are neither directly targeted as victims nor directly participating as perpetrators. The moral issues raised by genocide, taken as the illegal act par excellence, are not confined to the nexus of agent and victim. Those directly involved in a given instance of genocide will always form a minority, so to speak. The majority to the event will be formed by the contemporary bystanders. Such bystanders are individuals; in their private and professional lives, they will belong to a vast score of groups andcollectives, some informal and closely knit, others formal and detached as far as personal and emotional involvement are concerned. In the loose sense intended here, every

contemporary citizen cognizant of a specific ongoing instance of genocide, regardless of where in the world, counts as a bystander. Bystanders in this loose sense are cognizant, through TV, radio,newspapers, and other publicly available sources of information, of ongoing genocide somewhere in the world, but they are not - by profession or formal appointment involved in it. Theirs is a passive role, that of onlookers, although what starts out as a passive stance may, upon decision, convert into active engagement in the events at hand. I shall label this category passive bystanders. This group should be distinguished from bystanders by formal appointment: the latter bystanders have been professionally Engaged as a third party to the interaction between the two parties directly involved in acts of genocide. The

stance of this third party to an ongoing conflict, even one with genocidal implications, is in principle often seen as one of impartiality and neutrality, typically highlighted by a determined refusal to take sides.This manner of principled noninvolvement is frequently viewed as highly meritorious (Vetlesen, 1998). A case in point would be UN personneldeployed to monitor a ceasefire between warring parties, or (as was their task in Bosnia) to see to it that the civilians within a UN declared safe area are effectively guaranteed peace and security, as set down in the mandate to establish such areas. By

virtue of their assigned physical presence on the scene and the specific tasks given to them, such (groups of) bystanders may be referred to as bystanders by assignment. What does it mean to be a contemporary

bystander? To begin with, let us consider this question not from the expected view- point

that of the bystander - but from the two viewpoints provided by the parties directly involved in the event. To put it as simply as possible: From the viewpoint of an agent of genocide, bystanders are persons possessing a potential (one needing to be estimated in every concrete case) to halt his ongoing actions. The perpetrator will fear the bystander to the extent that he [or she] has reason to believe that the bystander will intervene to halt the action already under way, and thereby frustrate the perpetrators goal of eliminating the targeted group, that said, we immediately need to differentiate among the different categories of bystanders introduced above. It is obvious that the more knowledgeable and other wise resourceful the bystander, the more the perpetrator will have reason to fear that the potential for such resistance will translate into action, meaning a more or less direct intervention by military or other means. Deemed efficient to reach the objectives of halting the incipient genocide. Of course, one should distinguish between bystanders who remain inactive and those who become actively engaged. Nonetheless, the point to be stressed is that, in principle,

even the most initially passive and remote bystander possesses a potential to cease being a mere onlooker to the events unfolding. Outrage at what comes to pass may prompt the judgement that this simply must be stopped and translate into action promoting that aim. But is not halting genocide first and foremost a task, indeed a duty, for the victims themselves? The answer is simple: The sheer fact that genocide is happening shows that the targeted group has not proved itself able to prevent it. Thisbeing so, responsibility for halting what is now unfolding cannot rest with the victims alone, it must also be seen to rest with the party not itself affected but which is knowledgeable about -which is more or less literally witnessing the genocide that is taking place. So whereas for the agent, bystanders represent the potential of resistance, for the victims they may represent the only source of hope left. In

ethical terms, this is borne out in the notion of responsibility of Immanuel Levinas (1991), according to which responsibility grows bigger the weaker its addressee. Of course, agents of genocide may be caught more or less in delictoflagrante. But in the age of television - with CNN being able to film and even interview doers as well as victims on the spot, and broadcast live to the entire television-watching world (such as was the case in the concentration camp Omarska in Bosnia in August 1992) (see Gutman, 1993) physical co-presence to the event at hand is almost rendered superfluous. One need not have been there in order to have known what happened, The same holds for the impact of the day-to-day reporting From the ground by newspaper journalists of indisputable reputation. In order to be knowledgeable about ongoing genocide, it suffices to watch the television news or read the front pages of a daily newspaper. But, to be more precise, what exactly does it mean to act? What is to count as an action? We need to look briefly at the philosophical literature on the notion of action as well as the notion of agent responsibility following from it - in order to gel a better grasp of the moral issues involved in being a bystander to genocide, whether passive or active. I never forget', says Paul Ricoeur in Oneself as Another, 'to speak of humans as acting and suffering, The moral problem', he continues, is grafted onto the recognition of this essential dissymmetry between the one who acts and the one who undergoes, culminating in the violence of the powerful agent.' To be the 'sufferer' of a given action in Ricoeur's sense need not be negative; either 'the sufferer appears as the beneficiary of esteem or as the victim of disesteem, depending on whether the agent proves to be someone who distributes rewards or punishments'. Since

there is to every action an agent and a sufferer (in the sense given), action is interaction, its structure is interpersonal (Ricoeur. 1992:145). But this is not the whole picture. Actions are also omitted, endured, neglected, and the like; and Ricoeur takes these phenomena to remind us that on the level of interaction, just as on that of subjective understanding, not acting is still acting: neglecting, forgetting to do something, is also letting things be done by someone else, sometimes to the point of criminality. (Ricoeur, 1992:157) Ricoeur's systematic objective is to extend the theory of action from acting to suffering beings; again andagain he emphasizes that 'every action has its agents and its patients' (1992; 157). Ricoeur's proposed extension certainly sounds plausible. Regrettably, his proposal stops halfway. The vital insight articulated, albeit not developed, in the passages quoted is that not acting is still acting. Brought

to bear on the case of genocide as a reported, on going affair, the inaction making a difference is the inaction of the bystander to unfolding genocide. The failure to act when confronted with such action, as is involved in accomplishing genocide, is a failure which carries a message to both the agent and the sufferer: the action may proceed. Knowing, yet still not acting, means-granting acceptance to the action. Such inaction entails letting things be done by someone else - clearly, in the case of acknowledged genocide, 'to the point of criminality', to invoke one of the quotes from Ricoeur. In short, inaction here means complicity; accordingly, it raises the question of responsibility, guilt, and shame on the part of the inactive bystander, by which I mean the bystander who decides to remain inactive. In the viewI am advancing, the theory of action is satisfactorily extended only when it is recognized that the structure of action is triadic, not dyadic. It takes two to act, we are tempted to say no more and no less. But is an action really the exclusive possession a private affair between the two parties immediately affected as agent and sufferer? For

one thing, the repercussions of a particular piece of action are bound to reach far beyond the immediate dyadic setting. As Hannah Arendt (1958) famously observed, to act is to initiate, to make a new beginning in the world, to set in motion - and open-endedly so. Only the start of a specific action allows precise localization in space and time, besides our attributing it to aparticular agent, as her property and no one elses. But, as for the repercussions, they evade being traced in any definite manner, to any final and definitive endpoint.

concrete, and drilling. During windless conditions (especially in areas of thermal increases in dust could decrease forage palatability for wildlife and livestock and increase the potential for dust pneumonia.inversion), project-related odors may be detectable at more than a mile from the source. Excess

Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that arerelevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs [*27] that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The

first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." n3 While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. n4 Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns. n5

Air emissions associated with oil and gas production can significantly impact air quality and impair visibility. Concerns regarding these impacts have expanded in recent years as oil and gas production in Region 8 has grown. Air emissions generated during oil and gas production, along with emissions from other sources, are regulated by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and can be grouped into three categories: Criteria air pollutants (ozone, CO, SO2, PM, and their precursors, including NOx and VOCs); Hazardous air pollutants21 (HAPs, primarily fugitive VOC emissions from oil and gas production); Haze precursors (which include ozone, NOx, SO2, and particulates); and In addition, greenhouse gases (GHGs, which include CO2 and CH4) are generated during oil and gas development. EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in July 2008 considering possible GHG emissionregulation under the Clean Air Act. Several Rocky Mountain states have developed or are considering mandatory GHG emission limits.

Air emissions associated with oil and gas production can significantly impact air quality and impair visibility. Concerns regarding these impacts have expanded in recent years as oil and gas production in Region 8 has grown. Air emissions generated during oil and gas production, along with emissions from other sources, are regulated by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and can be grouped into three categories: Criteria air pollutants (ozone, CO, SO2, PM, and their precursors, including NOx and VOCs); Hazardous air pollutants21 (HAPs, primarily fugitive VOC emissions from oil and gas production); Haze precursors (which include ozone, NOx, SO2, and particulates); and In addition, greenhouse gases (GHGs, which include CO2 and CH4) are generated during oil and gas development. EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in July 2008 considering possible GHG emissionregulation under the Clean Air Act. Several Rocky Mountain states have developed or are considering mandatory GHG emission limits.

Warming leads to extinction try or die Romm 10 (Jon, Editor of Climate Progress, Disputing the consensus on globalwarming, http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/16/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-climate-science/) A good example of how scientific evidence drives our understanding concerns how we

know that humans are the dominant cause of global warming. This is, of course, the deniers favorite topic. Since it is increasingly obvious that the climate is changing and the planet is warming, the remaining deniers have coalesced to defend their Alamo that human emissionsarent the cause of recent climate change and therefore that reducing those emissions is pointless. Last year, longtime Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote, There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the worlds present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankinds sinful contribution. In fact, the evidence is amazingly strong. Moreover, if the relatively complex climate models are oversimplified in any respect, it is by omitting amplifying feedbacks and other factors that suggest human-caused climate change will be worse than is widely realized. The IPCC concluded last year: Greenhouse

gas forcing has very likely (>90 percent) caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. Scientists have come to understand that forcings (natural and human-made) explain most of the changes in our climate and temperature both in recent decades and over the past millions of years. The primary human-made forcings are the heat-trapping greenhouse gases we generate, particularly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas. The natural forcings includefluctuations in the intensity of sunlight (which can increase or decrease warming), and major volcanoes that inject huge volumes of gases and aerosol particles into the stratosphere (which tend to block sunlight and cause cooling). Over and over again, scientists have demonstrated that observed changes in the climate in recent decades can only be explained by taking into account the observed combination of human and natural forcings. Natural forcings alone just dont explain what is happening to this planet. For instance, in April 2005, one of the nations top climate scientists, NASAs James Hansen, led a team of scientists that made precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years, which revealed that the Earth is absorbing far more heat than it is emitting to space, confirming what earlier computer models had shown about warming. Hansen called this energy imbalance the smoking gun of climate change, and said, There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming. Another 2005 study, led by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans) with climate models and concluded: A warming signal has penetrated into the worlds oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically [human-caused] forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Such studies are also done for many other observations: land-based temperature rise, atmospheric temperature rise, sea level rise, arctic ice melt, inland glacier melt, Greeland and Antarctic ice sheet melt, expansion of the tropics (desertification) and changes in precipitation. Studies compare every testable prediction from climate change theory and models (and suggested by paleoclimate research) to actual observations. How many studies? Well, the IPCCs definitive treatment of the subject, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, has 11 full pages of references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies. This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research and actual observations reveal. And the science behind human attribution has gotten much stronger in the past 2 years (see a recent literature review by the Met Office here). That brings us to another problem with the word consensus. It can mean unanimity or the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. Many, if not most, people hear the second

meaning: consensus as majority opinion. The scientific consensus most people are familiar with is the IPCCs Summary for Policymakers reports. But those arent a majority opinion. Government representatives participate in a line-by-line review and revision of these summaries. So China, Saudi Arabia and that hotbed of denialism the Bush administration get to veto anything they dont like. The deniers call this politicized science, suggesting the process turns the IPCC summaries into some sort of unscientific exaggeration. In fact, the reverse is true. The net result is unanimous agreement on a conservative or watered-down document. You could argue that rather than majority rules, this is minority rules. Last April, in an article titled Conservative Climate, Scientific American noted that objections by Saudi Arabia and China led the IPCC to remove a sentence stating that the

impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on the Earths recent warming is five times greater than that of the sun. In fact, lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England said, The difference is really a factor of 10. Then I discuss the evidence we had even back in 2008 that the IPCC was underestimating key climate impacts, a point I update here. The bottom line is that recent observations and research make clear the planet almost certainly faces a greater and more imminent threat than is laid out in the IPCC reports. Thats why climate scientists are so desperate. Thats why they keep begging for immediate action. And thats why theconsensus on global warming is a phrase that should be forever retired from the climate debate. The leading scientific organizations in this country and around the world, including all the major national academies of science, arent buying into some sort of consensus of opinion. They have analyzed the science and observations and expressed their

understanding of climate science and the likely impacts we face on our current emissions path an understanding that has grown increasingly dire in recent years (see An illustrated guide to the latest climate science and An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water).

Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Greenhouse gases(GHG) are generated directly by offshore oil E&P and indirectly by enabling future emissions of oil as it is refined, distributed, and consumed, primarily by the transportation sector. In the U.S., 2007 emissions of methane from petroleum E&P was estimated at 22 MMTCO2 e (million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents)in addition to total contributions of petroleum at 2,579.9 MMTCO2 e (EIA, 2008).These GHGs are primary drivers that disrupt the carbon cycle involving the biosphere, atmosphere, sediments(including fossil fuels), and the ocean.The consequences of this disruption include climate change (global warming, melting of ice atthe poles, and ocean acidification.)The ocean acts as a carbon sink, absorbing CO2 . As CO2 increases, the acidity of the ocean increases and carbonate becomes less available to marine organisms that need it to build shells and skeletal material. Corals, calcareous phytoplankton, and mussels are especially susceptible to acidosis, which can lead to lowered immune response, metabolic depression, behavioral depression affecting physical activity and reproduction, and asphyxiation(TheOcean Acidification Network,n.d.).

Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Greenhouse gases(GHG) are generated directly by offshore oil E&P and indirectly by enabling future emissions of oil as it is refined, distributed, and consumed, primarily by the transportation sector. In the U.S., 2007 emissions of methane from petroleum E&P was estimated at 22 MMTCO2 e (million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents)in addition to total contributions of petroleum at 2,579.9 MMTCO2 e (EIA, 2008).These GHGs are primary drivers that disrupt the carbon cycle involving the biosphere, atmosphere, sediments(including fossil fuels), and the ocean.The consequences of this disruption include climate change (global warming, melting of ice atthe poles, and ocean acidification.)The ocean acts as a carbon sink, absorbing CO2 . As CO2 increases, the acidity of the ocean increases and carbonate becomes less available to marine organisms that need it to build shells and skeletal material. Corals, calcareous phytoplankton, and mussels are especially susceptible to acidosis, which can lead to lowered immune response, metabolic depression, behavioral depression affecting physical activity and reproduction, and asphyxiation(TheOcean Acidification Network,n.d.).

A glimpse of future ocean chemistry finds that acidification transforms entire ecosystems. Ocean acidification may create an impact similar to extinction on marine ecosystems, according to a study published Monday. The study, exploring naturally acidic waters near volcanic vents in the Mediterranean Ocean off Italy, suggests that ocean acidification as a result of human emissions can degrade entire ecosystems not just individual species, as past studies have shown.The result, scientists say, is a homogenized marine community dominated by fewer plants and animals.

"The background, low-grade stress caused by ocean acidification can cause a whole shift in the ecosystem so that everything is dominated by the same plants, which tend to be turf algae," said lead authorKristy Kroeker, a postdoctoral researcher at the Bodega Marine Laboratory at the University of California, Davis.

Extinction Diner 1994 (Judge Advocates Generals Corps of US Army, David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161,)No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In

past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefitsto mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would

be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically

diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric canresist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing

widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss

A Canadian-led team of scientists may have solved the biggest whodunit in Earth history in a study showing that the all-time greatest mass extinction on the planet - which wiped out about 90% of all species 250 million years ago - appears to have been linked to rising levels of ocean acidity. Researchers havelong believed that massive volcanic eruptions in present-day Siberia - or possibly a huge meteorite strike - triggered the so-called PermianTriassic extinction. But the precise mechanism of death for so many species remains a subject of debate, with some scientists convinced it was a resulting lack of oxygen in the Earth's oceans or a greenhouse-gas nightmare that nearly ended all plant and animal life. But

the Canadian study, headed by St. Francis Xavier University climate scientist Alvaro Montenegro, points to ocean acidification as a possible "main culprit" in the harrowing, prehistoric die-off. And the Nova Scotia researcher told Postmedia News that the finding should serve as a warning about present-day increases in ocean acidification. Though still far lower than that experienced in the ancient mass extinction, rising acidity has been documented by researchers around the world and is linked to the effects of climate change. Using aseries of computer simulations to recreate conditions on the planet at the time, Montenegro and his five colleagues from Canada and Australia found it unlikely that oxygen-starved oceans led to the mass extinction. Instead, their models pointed to a new prime suspect: spiking acid levels in the world's marine environments. Runaway

ocean acidification "would definitely have a very serious biological impact on oceans calcifiers," said Montenegro, referring to creatures that manufacture their own bodily structures from minerals found in ocean water. Among the species that vanished from the rock record aroundthe time of the P-T extinction were most of the ammonites - large, snail-shaped marine creatures that are known today from the beautifully iridescent, multi-coloured fossils of their spiral shells, found in places such as southern Alberta. The relatively few ammonite species that survived the mass extinction 250 million years ago were later killed off by the meteorite-linked extinction at the end of the dinosaur age 65 million years ago.

groups have virtually taken over the pipeline system of Mexico's state oil monopoly, stealing growing amounts of fuel and gaining an important source of new revenue as they fight other gangs and Mexico's government, according to the oil company. The problem isn't new, but it is expanding at a rapid pace, as the crime groups learn technical expertise that can foil electronic monitoring systems. The rise in fuel thefts comes as the government struggles to contain an increase inviolence linked to organized crime groups, which have expanded operations from traditional drug trafficking to kidnapping, extortion and protection rackets.

Already more than 40,000 people have died in Mexico since December 2006 in drug-related violence, most of it between rival gangs seeking to expand their territory, according to government and newspaper estimates. The total amount of fuel, including crude oil and gasoline, diesel, and liquefied petroleum gastaken during the first four months of the year is slightly greater than the total amount stolen all of last year, Chief Executive of Petrleos Mexicanos Juan JosSurez Coppel said this week. During the first four months of this year, these groups stole an estimated $250 million worth of fuel at market prices, Mr. Surez Coppel said. That translates to nearly one million barrels of fuel, according to Pemex, as it's known. Mexico relies on oil sales for about a third of its revenue. "The

increase in theft...is due to the fact that the pipeline system has been virtually taken over by groups associated with organized crime," Pemex says on its website.Unless Pemex can slow the thefts, these criminal groups stand to make an estimated $750 million on stolen fuel this year. Pemex reported a first-quarter profit of $353 million.

Suspicion for the thefts has largely fallen on Los Zetas, a gang that has branched out to other types of organized crime and expanded its territorial control along swaths of Mexico's eastern Gulf coast, the site of much of Pemex's operations.President Felipe Caldern this week urged Mexican lawmakers to pass tougher laws against fuel thefts, while giving authorities greater power to prosecute by also focusing on buyers of the stolen fuel. Those could be gasoline stations, or factories that use diesel or bunker fuel, Mr. Surez Coppel said.

The gangs use the stolen fuel, or they sell it to other companies, sometimes across the border in the U.S.A few weeks ago, Pemex sued nine oil and pipeline companiesseven of them in Texasfor buying stolen fuel. Two Texas oil company officials were convicted in 2010 of selling petroleum products stolen from Mexico. As the government steps up its vigilance, the thieves have also increased their activity and sophistication. Pemex detects taps in its pipelines through a reduction in the pressure, although the exact site can take days or weeks to locate. In some areas, inspection teams have to be accompanied by the army, the Pemex chief said.

But the gangs are becoming more sophisticated, injecting water back into the pipeline in some cases to avoid a drop in pressure. Experts say Pemex bears part of the blame, too. As a monopoly, the company has long lacked a culture of maintenance and upkeep at its facilities, including pipelines, says George Grayson, a professor at the College of William and Mary who has written extensively on both Pemex and Mexican drug gangs. Pemex has also long tolerated theft of oil from unionized workers, Mr. Grayson said, suggesting some union workersare probably colluding with criminal gangs to steal fuel. "I would be shocked if there wasn't also connivance by members of the Pemex union," said Mr. Grayson.

violent drug cartels are getting into the oil business, tapping into underground pipelines and siphoning off tons of crude, gasoline and other fuels, some of which is ending up in the United States.

The stolen fuel has created a huge income stream, as much as $715 million a year, that gangs can use to buy weapons, bribe officials and bankroll their bloody battle against the Mexican government,experts warn. They sell the fuel through their own gasoline stations; sell it to unscrupulous manufacturers or trucking firms in Mexico; use it to pump up profits at front companies owned by the cartels; or sell it to foreign refiners on the international black market. Last year, thieves

stole an average of 8,432 barrels of petroleum products each day, enough to fill 39 tanker trucks. The thieves are leaving a trail of environmental devastation, with broken pipelines poisoning farm fields and leaking into Mexican rivers. The number of illegal pipeline taps has more than quadrupled since 2004, from 102 then to 462 last year, despiterenewed anti-theft efforts by Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil monopoly better known as Pemex. In 2008 alone, authorities arrested 528 people and seized 517 vehicles, Pemex said. Losses that year were $715 million; it has not released an estimate for 2009. "It's

a big problem and a continual thorn in their side," said David Shields, editor of Energia a Debate, an oil-industry magazine. "And the states that have drug trafficking have more problems with their pipelines." The thieves use powerful drills and sophisticated valves to prevent any drop in pipeline pressure that might be detected by Pemex. They use hoses to fill fuel trucks with the stolen liquids. Sometimes they even take a more directapproach: hijacking tanker trucks full of fuel. Since October, five American businessmen have pleaded guilty to importing stolen petroleum condensate, a raw ingredient for fuels. In the early hours of a frosty February morning, a

resident in the Central Mexican town of Amozoc heard suspicious noises in the field near his house. He called for help. When the state agents arrived, they found a trucktrying to leave the area with a whopping 5,000 gallons of crude oil in the back. The three men on board had drilled a hole into a major oil pipeline that runs through the town and sucked the fuel into their truck through a hose. Worst of

all, the alleged culprits were

town policemen.Such oil theft has become increasingly common in Mexico amid a breakdown in law-and-order in certain states. Last year, the government oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos or Pemex detected 712 such pipeline taps a fivefold increase compared to the 136 spotted in 2005. It

represents a significant loss of government income at a time when revolution in the Middle East has pushed crude oil prices to nearly $100 a barrel. (The Amozoc haul would be the equivalent of about 120 barrels or roughly $12,000.) Adding to the alarm, detectives working on several cases have traced the thefts to drug cartels, such as the Zetas, an indication that the country's overlords of crime have branched out into yet another line of business.As with the narcotics business, the clandestine nature of Mexico's illegal oil market makes it impossible to know exactly how much it is worth. Pemex is one of the world's leading oil companies with revenues of $104 billion in 2010. That alone provides some 40% of Mexico's federal budget. Company officials insist they are losing less than 1% of their black gold to the bandits. However,

energy analyst David Shields believes that figure is an underestimate; he calculates that the fuel black market is now worth $2 billion to $4 billion annually. "The government is so involved in other matters such as assassinations and wholetowns being controlled by drug cartels, that the illicit fuel market doesn't seem such a big deal," Shields says. "So the government has failed to see that it has to act more strenuously on this."

Oil thieves sometimes hawk stolen gasoline on the side of highways. But other times it is actually sold by middlemen to Pemex franchise gas stations and ends up in the cars of unknowing consumers.Meanwhile, stolen crude is sold off to brick makers who use the fuel to fire their ovens; or it is smuggled across the border and peddled to oil tycoons in the United States. Following a bi-national probe, U.S. police charged five Houston-based oil brokers with receiving stolen Mexican fuel (in this case, petroleum condesate), including the president of Continental Fuels who was given probation by a Houston federal court in January. As the fuel is stolen it can be sold for less than half the market price at a time of record highs. But once in the system, it impossible

to know stolen from legitimate fuel and it can pass into the refineries and tankers of legitimate companies, traveling across Mexico, the United States and beyond. With oil in such high demand, even relativelysmall amounts can quickly turn gangsters into millionaires. Pemex officials argue they are getting better at detecting the illegal taps, but concede it is a tough to stop the robbers. "We have the technology to detect any change of pressure in the pipelines. But as you see, they are very sophisticated gangs who know our operations," Pemex Director Juan Jose Suarez told a recent news conference. The

problem is aggravated by the fact that some of the Mexican states with the most oil are the scenes of its worst drug violence, such as Tamaulipas on the border with Texas. Among recent bloodshed there: the assassination of the leading gubernatorial candidate last June; the slaughter ofan entire village that had been fleeing gangsters in December; and the killing of 18 people in a single gunfight on March 7. Stolen oil ends up low on the list of crimes for police to deal with.

on the Mexican border could lead to Mexican drug cartels helping terrorists attack the U.S. When you havegangs and they have loose ties with al Qaeda and then you have Iran not too far away from building a nuclear capability, nuclear terrorism may not be far off, said Rep. Trent Franks (R- Ariz.), a member of the House Armed Services committee. The Mexican drug cartelsviolence accounted for more than 6,000 deaths last year, and in recent months it has begun spilling over into the districts of lawmakers from the southwest region, even as far north as Phoenix, Ariz. -- which has become, Franks noted, the kidnap capital of the U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district borders Mexico, said that while

the situation is bad, it could easily get worse. The goal of the cartels is to make money, said Cuellar, who sits on the House Homeland Security committee. If they can smuggle in drugs and human cargo, then certainly they can smuggle other things in, other devices to cause us harm. We have not heard of any associations, but is there the possibility? Ill be the first to say, yeah. They have the routes, they can veryeasily smuggle in other things. If I was a bad guy in another country, I would go into Central America because the U.S. is not paying the proper attention. Violence reached new levels last week when the mayor of Juarez, a Mexican city with 1.6 million people that serves as a major transit point for drug smugglers, moved his family to El Paso, Texas, after receiving threats against his and their lives. The move corresponded with the resignation of the citys police chief after a drug cartel promised to kill a police of ficer every 48 hours if he did not step down. The citys police director of operations, a police officer and a prison guard were killed by the cartels in days prior. That was a mistake in my judgment, Franks said of the chiefs resignation. The federal government should have come in and said listen, were going to put a Marine division there to help you out if thats whats necessary, but narco-terrorists

real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah could form alliances with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks, U.S.officials said Wednesday.

Extremist group operatives have already been identified in several Latin American countries, mostly involved in fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence analysis at the Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established smuggling routes and drug profits to bring people or even weapons of mass destruction to the U.S. "The presence of these people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the U nited S tates," said Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. "The threats in this hemisphere are real. Wecannot ignore them." Added U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration operations chief Michael Braun: "It is not in our interest to let that potpourri of scum to come together."

Extinction Corsi, 5 [Jerome. PhD in Poli Sci from Harvard, Expert in Politically-Motivated Violence. Atomic Iran, Pg 176-8//JVOSS]The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by theexplosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb

Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president,at the Empire State Building.

members of Congress, the

military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. [CONTINUES} Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strikeon Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims

around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. Butfor the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That

the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.

In the first four months of 2013, Mexican state oil company Pemex recorded 730 illegal siphons, in comparison to 377 last year, reported La Jornada. Of those siphons, 666 targeted pipelines operated by Pemex's oilrefining arm, 40 its gas and petro-chemicals arm and 24 from Pemex Exploration and Production. The worst hit states were Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Sinaloa, the state of Mexico and Jalisco. Authorities have arrested 48 people for siphoning, and 180 more for transporting illegal fuel, so far this year.

Between 2011 and 2012, the number of illegal siphons detected jumped 23.2 percent, from 1,416 to 1,744. Pemex attributed the rise predominantly to a growing interest in oil and gas theft among Mexico's organized crime groups, but also to advances in detecting siphons. In recent year, oil theft has gone from being characterized by petty theft and corruption within Pemex, to a large scale criminal operation carried out by major organized crime players, in particular the Zetas. Since the drug cartels got involved in the trade, recorded theft has been rising quickly, and appears to be still accelerating, suggesting the multi-million dollar trade is an increasingly important source of revenue for the groups involved. The idea that this acceleration is being fuelled by organized crime groups is supported by the geography of the trade. Of the states identified by Pemex, all but the State of Mexico have heavy drug cartel presence and the Zetas, who are behind much of the trade are believed to be present in all of them.

Zetas control oil The Economist 12 (Black gold on the black market, Stolen petroleum is a growing source of income for Mexicos bandits, Aug 4th2012, http://www.economist.com/node/21559962) //EY

DRUGS, extortion, kidnapping, people-smuggling: Mexicos organised-crime multinationals have a keen eye for diversification. A growing sideline is stolen oil. In 2011 outlaws made off with 3.35m barrels of fuel belonging to Pemex, the state-run oil monopoly, up from 2.16m in 2010. The thefts are reckoned to deprive thecompany of more than $1 billion per year. Pemexs profits pay for a third of the federal governments budget.

Stealing the fuel, which includes gas condensate and refined oil as well as crude, is not hard. Some goes missing from lorries that are held up in lonely stretches of desert. More is siphoned out of lengthy exposed pipelines. Tapping the high-pressure pipes is dangerous: in 2010 a suspected attempt to puncture one producedan explosion that caused 28 deaths.

Despite such accidents, ever more people are taking the risk. Last year Pemex detected 1,324 taps, over twice as many as in 2010. The increase was partly down to better detection, the firm says. But robbers are getting more sophisticated, sometimes pumping water back into the pipes to fool pressure sensors. Pemex concedes that some sites have been taken over, practically, by bands of organised criminals.

oil theft at Mexico's state oil monopoly, Pemex, amounts to as much as 10,000 barrels per day (bpd) and has been rising by nearly a third annually, a top official with the company said on Thursday.

"It's between 5,000 and 10,000 barrels per day," Carlos Morales, head of Pemex's exploration and production arm, said on the sidelines of an oil conference in the resort city of Cancun. "The

thefts target gasoline, diesel and crude ... they vary all the time but without a doubt they have a major impact on the (Pemex) budget. Each year fuel theft in Mexico has increased 30 percent," he added. Criminals have targeted oil pipelines around the country and Pemex says that company workers are often complicit.Mexico is currently producing just over 2.5 million bpd, well down from a peak of 3.4 million bpd in 2004.

Despite the millions of dollars spent trying to battle theft of oil, petrol, and diesel by Mexican criminal gangs, Pemex, the Mexican governments hydrocarbon monopoly, has reported that the pilfering has actually continued to rise. The amount of petroleum products stolen in the first half of this year is up 18 percent compared to 2011, totalling more than 1.8 million barrels. Most of the criminal operations are coordinated by the Zetas, one of the largest and most violent gangs in Mexico. It isthought that they steal the hydrocarbons from places such as Mexicos Burgos Basin natural gas field in the north east of the country, and then sell it to Houston-based refineries. Pemex is currently trying to take a number of Houston companies to court for either knowingly or unknowingly trading in stolen petroleum products that have been smuggled out of Mexico since 2006.

Using sophisticated measuring systems which can detect drops in pipeline pressure, officials at Pemex discovered nearly 800 illegal taps during the first six months of 2012. In the whole of 2011 1,300 such taps weredetected. George Baker, a Houston-based expert on Mexicos energy industry, explained that this is not just small gangs siphoning off petrol from pipelines, the

product is being stolen in huge amounts and in broad daylight. That raises the question of how many holes are in the system from people looking the other way.

high-tech drills, miles of rubber hose and a fleet of stolen tanker trucks have siphoned more than $1 billion worth of oil from Mexico's pipelines over the past two years, in a vast and audacious conspiracy that is bleeding the national treasury, according to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials andthe state-run oil company.

Using sophisticated smuggling networks, the traffickers have transported a portion of the pilfered petroleum across the border to sell to U.S. companies, some of which knew that it was stolen, according tocourt documents and interviews with American officials involved in an expanding investigation of oil services firms in Texas. The widespread theft of Mexico's most vital national resource by criminal organizations represents a costly new front in President Felipe Caldern's war against the drug cartels, and it shows how the traffickers are rapidly evolving from traditional narcotics smuggling to activities as diverse as oil theft, transport and sales.

Oil theft has been a persistent problem for the state-run Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, but the robbery increased sharply after Caldern launched his war against the cartels shortly after taking office in December 2006. The drug war has claimed more than 16,000 lives and has led the cartels, which rely on drug trafficking for most oftheir revenue, to branch out into other illegal activities.

Authorities said they have traced much of the oil rustling to the Zetas, a criminal organization founded by former military commandos. Although the Zetas initially served as a protection arm of the powerful Gulf cartel, they now call their own shots and dominate criminal enterprise in the oil-rich states of Veracruz and Tamaulipas.

"The

Zetas are a parallel government," said Eduardo Mendoza Arellano, a federal lawmaker who heads a national committee on practically own vast stretches of the pipelines, from the highway to the very door of the oil companies." The Zetas earn millions of dollars by "taxing" the oil pipelines -- organizing the theft themselves or taking a cut from anyone who does the stealing, according to Mexican authorities. The U.S. Treasury Department this summerenergy. "They designated two Zeta commanders as narcotics "kingpins," which allows authorities to seize assets.

The Zetas often work with former Pemex employees, according to Ramn Pequeo Garca, chief of anti-drug operations atMexico's Public Security Ministry. The former employees "are highly skilled people who have the technical knowledge to extract oil from the pipelines. They are now under the control of the Zetas," Pequeo said.

Pemex, which is Mexico's largest income earner, pulling in nearly a third of the national budget, once staked great hopes on the area and its prospects for yielding gas, abundant thanks to the sandy soil and porous rock that make for idealproduction and exploration conditions. After dedicating nearly half a century to testing and exploration in the basin, Pemex in 2002 took the unusual step of opening it up to foreign investment, in contrast to Mexico's historic protectionist attitude toward natural resources. Pemex officials anticipated an injection upward of $8 billion.

Employees of Pemex and a handful of foreign-owned firms were earning well in the basin, living good livesand working in relative safety.

Then convoys of mysterious gunmen started plying the roadways, followed by shows of force, intimidation, beatings and, finally, the abductions. Pleas for help and better protection, union leaders and workers say, went unheeded. The exact motives behind the May kidnappings remain unclear. Ramirez, the senator, said the cartel responsible, probably the Zetas, may be after technical information to elude the measures Pemex is taking to guard against the rampant thefts of gas and oil.Whatever the motive, the effect has been to cripple operations in some areas of the basin. "In the Burgos project, there are areas we cannot access," Carlos Morales Gil, director of exploration and production for Pemex, said during a news conference in the Tabasco city of Villahermosa in July. It was a startling admission.

Narco-Terrorism Turns Hegemony

Drug trade violence turns Mexico into a failed state and destabilizes the US Broder, 9 senior editor for defense and foreign policy at Roll Call. Before joining Congressional Quarterly in 2002, he worked as an editorat National Public Radio in Washington and as a foreign correspondent for the Associated Press, NBC News and the Chicago Tribune, based in Jerusalem, Beirut and Beijing. graduate of the University of Virginia and studied international relations at Harvard University. (Jonathan, Mexico's Drug War: Violence Too Close to Home 3/9/09 http://library.cqpress.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/cqweekly/weeklyreport111000003069323.) // czhang With an approving nod from the United States, Mexican President Felipe Calderon has thrown his army into the fight against the cartels, but the well-armed gangs are fighting back. And according to some U.S. officials and experts, the Drug barons are winning. In Washington, where policy debates involving Mexico have been confined mostly to trade and immigration for the past two decades, sudden awareness of the Drug war has produced some alarming assessments. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who was the Drug czar in the Clinton White House, warned recently that unless

the Mexican government gains control of the Drug gangs, the United States could, within a decade, be confronting on its southern border a narco-state meaning an area controlled by Drug cartels. The Pentagon envisions an even worse scenario: Mexico and Pakistan, it says, are the countries most at risk of swiftly collapsing into failed states those whose central governments are so weak they have little practical control over most of their territory. Beset as he is at home by the credit crisisand plunging economy, President Obamas response to the chaos in Mexico has so far been to continue some George W. Bush administration policies while beginning a search for others. He is expected to focus on possible regional approaches when he attends a Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago next month. Experts on the region, though, say the

magnitude of the Drug war in Mexico and its danger to the United States far exceed the reach of existing federal policies, perhaps even the policies the new administration is considering, such as stepped-up military aid and regional cooperation. Uncontrolled Drug violence in Mexico, these experts say, might result in tens of thousands of refugees surging across the border, adding to the estimated 12 million immigrants already in the country illegally. U.S. Drug officials say that a narco-state in Mexico could turn the ungoverned territory along the border into a permanent springboard for Mexican Drug traffickers smuggling their goods north into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. And economic analysts say that should the Mexican government completely collapse, it would jeopardize oil exports from Mexico, from which the United States receives a third of its supply. Anydescent by Mexico into chaos, the Pentagons Joint Forces Command wrote in November, would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.

Collapses hegemony the US will be too busy dealing with Mexico to project power in other places Haddick 8 - a contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command who wrote the This Week at War column for Foreign Policy - (Robert,Now that would change everything December 2008, http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-change-everything.html)//WL There is one dynamic in the literature of weak and failing states that has received relatively little attention, namely the phenomenon of rapid collapse. For the most part, weak and failing states represent chronic, long-term problems that allow for management over sustained periods. The collapse of a state usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems. The collapse of Yugoslavia into a chaotic tangle of warring nationalities in 1990 suggests how suddenly and catastrophically state collapse can happen - in this case, a state which had hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics at Sarajevo, and which then quickly became the epicenter of the ensuing civil war. In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons. That perfect storm of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used.

The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. Yes, the rapid collapse of Mexico would change everything with respect to the global security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security

implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. The hypothetical collapse of Pakistan is a scenario that has already been well discussed. In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to isolate itself from most effects emanating from south Asia. However, there would be no running from a Mexican collapse.

Turns US-Mex Relations

Drug violence will collapse relations Kurtzman, 09 (Joel, Senior Fellow; Executive Director, Senior Fellows Program; Publisher, The Milken Institute Review, business editorand columnist at The New York Times, member of the editorial board of Harvard Business School, AB at the University of California, Recipient of the Eisner Memorial Award, master's at the University of Houston, recipient of a Moody Foundation Fellowship, Mexico's Instability Is a Real Problem, the Wall Street Journal, 1/16/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206674721488169.html) My colleague, Glenn Yago, and I calculate that if

Mexico were to reduce corruption and bring its legal, economic, accounting and regulatory standards up to U.S. levels (the U.S. ranks 13th and Finland ranks first), Mexico's nominal per capital GDP would increase by about $18,000 to roughly $28,000 a year. And it would also receive a lot more direct foreign investment that would createjobs. And this impacts the U.S. Thanks to Mexico's retarded economic growth, millions of Mexicans have illegally moved to the U.S. to find work. Unless the violence can be reversed, the U.S. can anticipate that the flow across the border will continue . To his credit, Mexico's President Felipe Caldern has deployed 45,000 members of his military and 5,000 federal police to fight drug traffickers. This suggests that he is taking the violence and the threat to civil government seriously. But the

path forward will be a difficult one. Not only must Mexico fight its drug lords, it must do so while putting its institutional house in order. That means firing governmentemployees who are either corrupt or not willing to do the job required to root out corruption. It will also likely require putting hundreds, or even thousands, of police officers in jail. For

more than a century, Mexico and the U.S. have enjoyed friendly relations and some degree of economic integration. But if Mexico's epidemic of violence continues, that relationship could end if the U.S. is forced to surge personnel to the border.

Turns Mex Econ

Drug violence negatively impacts Mexican labor markets, employment, investments and income causes significant economic contraction Robles et al., 13 fourth year PhD student in Political Science with specialization in the fields of Political Methodology andComparative Politics; with Gabriela Caldern, Ph.D. in Economics from Stanford University researching violence in Latin America and evaluation of public policy programs in Mexico; and Beatriz Magaloni, Associate Professor of Political Science & Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (Gustavo, The Economic Consequences of Drug Trafficking Violence in Mexico, Poverty and Governance, Stanford University, 19 April 2013, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/24014/RoblesCalderonMagaloni_EconCosts5.pdf)//BI

One of the greatest challenges for governments in Latin America is to ensure order and provide security. The levels of violence and crime in the region have increased in the last years with Mexico as one of the most affected countries by this crime wave. The dramatic change in the patterns of violence, especially the increased murder rate, is clearly related to structural changes in the drug trafficking business since 2006. External factors such as theincreased flow of trade with the United States, the greater availability of weapons, and the reduced cocaine supply from Colombia increased profitability substantially and attracted new competitors and suppliers into the drug trade. The increase

in the market size also changed the operation and internal organization of drug trafficking organizations from being family businessesto hierarchical organizations stratified into regional units. The interaction of the DTOs with local and national governments has also changed with the liberalization of politics in the country and the entry of multiple political actors and several parties, making more complex the operation of the business. Finally, the intense policies of President Caldern to combat and contain organized crime have fragmented the cohesion and organization of the narco-trafficking groups. As

a result of profound domestic and structural changes, the number of people involved in drug trafficking has grown. However, unlike the market of other products that operate in a legal arena, drug cartels do not compete for prices but instead compete directly to monopolize the means of distribution into the United States through the use of force. The growing rivalries between drug trafficking factions have resulted in an unprecedented increase in the levels of violence in the country. To estimate the impact of the increasing levels of violence on economic activity is a complex activity because the drug related violence is different innature than common crime. Most killings correspond to strategic assassinations of members of rival organizations or clashes with authorities. Besides being focused, the drug-related violence is sporadic and has a higher volatility than common criminal violence. Moreover, there is an identification problem as this type of violence is not seen in all municipalities with drug production, distribution, or trafficking ties. This makes it difficult to isolate the economic effect of increased levels of violence on the business activities of drug trafficking organizations. This study argues that the

violent competition between rival drug organizations has a negative effect on the

economy. To understand the mechanism, we use the analogy of Olson (2001) to imagine the cartels as stationary or roving banditsdepending on how they decide to integrate themselves into society. Stationary bandits, or benefactors, have the ability to maintain control over their territories over the long term and therefore have incentives to reduce predatory behavior as they look towards greater long-term gains. Roving bandits have temporary or uncertain control over their territory, which induces them to extract rents and resources from the community at the highest rate possible through extortion, robbery, and other crimes, to maximize short-term gain. The main argument of this study is that the

war between cartels for control over certain trafficking routes has been matched by a substantial increase in violence and petty crime, including theft, extortion, and kidnapping. Faced with increased competition, cartels have incentives to turn against society due to the need for greater resources tomaintain their armed conflicts, and because of a need to intimidate or punish members of rival organizations, as well as to exploit new opportunities for opportunistic crime. Following the above argument, and due to the nature of drug-related violence, we can assume that this

type of violence has no linear effect on economic performance, but instead that there is a threshold after which violence causes economic activity to significantly shrink. Below this turf-war threshold, many individuals and companies can internalize any increased costs resulting from the need for enhanced security and protection depending on their economic size and capacity. However, said adjustments have effects on the labor market, both in the supply and demand, and we can expect to find a marginal effect of violence on this area. Once the violence levels have passed into the war threshold, companies and individuals begin to change their actions in both the medium and long term, including their location, investments, and production, in the case of commercial enterprises, and their participation in the labor market and choice of profession, in the case of individuals. We can expect a significant contraction in economic activity in this range of violence that might not be adequately captured with a linear relationship model betweeneconomic activity and violence. In our study we used two empirical strategies to estimate both the marginal effects and the threshold effects of violence on economic activity and labor. To estimate the marginal effects, we did an instrumental variable regression utilizing exogenous variation of cocaine seizures in Colombia to instrument for violence. This variable was interacted with the distance of a municipality from

principle points of entry. We

found substantial negative effects on labor market participation, unemployment, decision to start a company, and income. To estimate the short-term and medium-term effects ofcrossing the turf-war threshold on the economy, we made use of synthetic control group methodology consisting of building counterfactual scenarios by creating optimal weighted units of control. We

used the close correlation between GDP and electricity consumption to estimate the effect of violence on economic activity at the municipal level. We found that those municipalities that saw dramatic increases in violence between 2006 and 2010 significantly reduced their energy consumption in the years after treatment. By analyzing the threshold effect, rather than a linear effect ofviolence on economic activity, the present study provides a baseline for future research to model and estimate in a more sophisticated way the relationship between violence and economic performance, in particular when we study drug-related violence

Drug trade eviscerates foreign direct investment into Mexico --- acts as a brake on growth Caldwell, 12 (Deborah, senior editor for Enterprise, Crime Explodes But an Economy Booms, CNBC, 9/18/12,http://www.cnbc.com/id/49037775, Tashma) And that is the paradox of Mexico. On one hand, the

countrys well-publicized drug killings would appear to be a clear disincentive to foreign investment. On the other hand, the economy has become an under-the-radar economic juggernaut. Its like the Mexican economy is driving with the emergency brake on , Selee said. You can only imagine if the violence werent going on, its growth could be extraordinary. You cant help think they could sustain 5 to 6 percent growth in one year. (Mexico is expected to grow at a rate of about 4 percent this year.) Violence is a key factor in Mexico's low -to-middling competitiveness ranking among the nations of the world. According to the World Economic Forum, Mexico ranked 58 out of 142 of the worlds countries in its 2010-2012 Global Competitive Index. Not surprisingly, the most problematic factors for doing business are crime, theft, corruption, and inefficient government bureaucracy. To put the ranking in context: The United States ranks number five out of 142; but Brazil generally considered the darlingof Latin American foreign investment ranks 53 out of 142 countries. Violence related to Mexicos drug trade increased dramatically after President Felipe Calderon took office in 2006 and launched a war on the cartels.Almost immediately, killings in Mexico rose as the cartels fought back. More than

47,000 people have been killed in drug violence since the start of the war on drugs through September 2011, the last time the government released official figures. Calderon leaves office in December after his sixyear term is complete. This month he acknowledged crime is a deterrent to foreign direct investment.

The short-term effects of oil spills on marine species and communities are well known and predictable. However, concems are often raised about possible longer-terrn ('sub-lethal') population effects through, for example, low levels of residual oil affecting the ability of certain species to breed successfully. In fact, extensive research and detailed post-spill studies have shown that many components of the marine environment are highly resilient to short-term adverse changes in the environment in which they live and that, as a consequence, a major oil spill will rarely cause permanent effects.

Exxon Valdez proves recovery is quick Time 11 (The BP Oil Spill, One Year Later: How Healthy Is the Gulf Now?, Bryan Walsh ,Apr. 19, 2011, I'm a senior writer for TIMEmagazine, covering energy and the environment , http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2066031,00.html) //EY Carl Safina headed down to the Gulf Coast just days after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010. A

veteran of the Exxon Valdez spill and the head of the Blue Ocean Institute, a nonprofit that focuses on marine health Safina wanted to see the Gulf oil spill up close, to document something he was sure would be an environmental catastrophe. Researching what would become the book A Sea in Flames which goes on sale April 19 Safina spent time with Gulf fishermen and ecologists, toured oiled beaches and spoke to people involved in the cleanup. As long as the oil kept spilling, just about everyone had the same opinion: the spill would be truly catastrophic for the Gulf and its coast. "We didn't know how it would stop or when it would stop," says Safina. "Gulf fishermen who'd invested their lives in the industry were convinced they'd never fish again."

Yet nearly a year after the spill began, it seems clear that the worst-case scenario never came true. It's not that the oil spill had no lasting effects far from it but the ecological doomsday many predicted clearly hasn't taken place. There is recovery where once there was only fear. "A lot of questions remain, but wherewe are now is ahead of where people thought we'd be," Safina says. "Most people expected it would be much worse." As we approach the anniversary of the spill, Safina's judgment is becoming the accepted wisdom: it could have been worse. That isn't to minimize what did happen in the Gulf of Mexico. Roughly 4.9 million barrels of oil blew out of BP's broken well and bled into the water, with a portion of that crude making landfall along the coastline. Add in the unknown effect of 1.84 million gallons (7 million L) of chemical dispersants, much of which were applied directly to the well deep below the surface of the ocean something that had never been done before.

Even the cleanup might have had an impact on the environment, thanks to the burning of oil on the surface of the Gulf, and the tens of thousands of workers who trampled along the sensitive wetlands of Louisiana, corralling crude wherever they could. Scientists caution that a single year isn't long enough to draw any finalconclusions about an environmental insult so huge.

Yet the damage does seem so far to have been less than feared. Take the oil itself: scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated last August that much of the oil had remained in the Gulf, where it had dispersed or dissolved. Many environmentalists attacked the report for underplaying the threat of large underwater oil plumes still active in the Gulf, yet later independent scientific studies indeed found that oil had largely disappeared from the water. Turns out we can thank bacteria. Scientists fromLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; University of California, Santa Barbara; and Texas A&M University traveled to the site of the blown well and found that microbes had digested much of the oil and methane that remained in the water. By

autumn, the levels were back to normal. "It's very surprising it happened so fast," John Kessler, an oceanographer with Texas A&M, told me earlier this year. "It looks like natural systems can handle an event like this somewhat on their own."

Despite efforts including policies implemented by the U.S. and Canadian governments, right whales, one of the most endangered species in the ocean, are still dying because of us humans. In a new study inConservation Biology, Julie van der Hoop and Michael Moore of the Massachusetts Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution analyzed data about the deaths of eight species of large whales in the northwest Atlantic between 1970 and 2009 during which they recorded 1,762 deaths and serious (likely fatal) injuries occurred among eight species of whales.

122 right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), 473 humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae), 257 fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and, as the journal Nature says, scores of whales of other species died. Theresearchers were only able to assign a reason for the whales deaths in 47 percent of the cases. In 67 pe rcent of these, the cause of death was human activity.

Specifically, entanglement of whales in fishing nets was the main reason for their deaths , followed by natural deaths and vessel strikes. Researchers found that the likelihood of whales being entangled or struck by vessels with fatal results increased significantly from 1990 through 2009 . The year after numerousefforts to prevent such had been enacted saw no significant change in the local intensity of all or vessel-strike mortalities.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, while an environmental tragedy in so many respects, also could not have come at a worse time for advocates of drilling off of America's coasts. The image of hundreds of thousands ofgallons of oil daily spilling into the Gulf of Mexico is a far more eloquent and powerful rebuttal to those who want to "drill baby, drill" than any words could have been. However, if the primary lesson which we take from this oil spill is that we should not drill for oil off of our shores, than we have missed the point. To a substantial extent the "drill baby, drill" slogan from 2008 was not so much a serious policy proposal as an emphatic verbal jab aimed at the environmental movement and the other alleged elites who recognized the seriousness of climate change and the need to change our behavior accordingly. It was a way for Sarah Palin and her supporters to all but shout down the knowledge and environmental realities that threatened their way of life. "Drill

baby, drill" was not so much an energy policy but a statement about one's views towards science, the environment and a complex and changing world. It also succeeded in precluding a seriousnational discussion about energy policy The "drill baby, drill" crowd is also an attractive straw man for the debate about offshore drilling. Drilling

for oil simply as a way to demonstrate that you believe that climate change is a fiction and that every American has the unequivocal right to use as much fossil fuel as possible, which seemed to be the argument behind this slogan, is a position that is easy to refute. It is also not particularly relevant to serious conversations about whether or not weshould drill off of our coasts.

The question of whether or not to drill offshore is something of a false construct anyway, because it is meaningless in the absence of other options. There are, of course, other options. We don't have to get our oil by drilling offshore. We can get it by tapping into our reserves or by buying it from somewhere else. If we decide to tap our reserves, we are doing little more than postponing the question about whether or not to drill offshore. Getting our oil from somewhere else, in addition to deeply complicating US foreign policy, is obviously not without an environmental impact. Carbon released by driving a car powered by oil from the Middle East, Central Asia or elsewhere, for example, still contributes to climate change. This spill is nonetheless significant because the oil is leaking out into the sea where it will damage marine life, make it more difficult to fish and cause other harm to the area. This is an environmental disaster thatcannot be ignored, but that probably will occur again if we increase offshore oil drilling and do not strengthen safety and environmental regulations. However,

as anybody who can recall the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 knows, not all marine oil spills are due to drilling offshore. The Valdez was a tanker transporting oil, not a rig drilling for oil. The current spill is worse than the Valdez, but stopping offshore oil drilling does not eliminate the risk, or perhaps the inevitability, that similar accidents will happen. Even oil that gets extracted from the desserts of the Middle East, Central Asia or the frozen Russian North has to be moved closer to consumers. This process relies upon networks of pipelines and shipping which can also fail leading to oil spills with disastrousenvironmental consequences.

The ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is, therefore, a stark reminder not only of the perils of offshore oil drilling, but of the inevitable consequences of continuing dependence of fossil fuels.Determining whether, when and where to drill is a difficult question, made more difficult because we are currently staring at what can go wrong with offshore drilling. However, these are not stand alone questions, but can only be answered in the context of a broader energy policy which includes incentives to move our country toward becoming less dependent on fossil fuels. The

belief held by many progressives -- that we have to change our way of living and our dependence on fossil fuels in order to combat climate change -- was what initially sparked the backlash and enthusiasm from Palin and her followers. Recent events only underscore that these ideas, which are not new, are even more relevant now. President Obama understood this two years ago, and it was reflected in his campaign rhetoric during the election. The slow leak of oilinto the Gulf of Mexico and the expanding oil slick on top of the Gulf are more reminders of the urgency of this problem.

Things just get imported still contributes to accidents/spills Pugliaresi et al. 10 (Offshore Drilling: An Argument in its Defense, by LUCIAN PUGLIARESI, BEN MONTALBANO,and TRISHACURTIS, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation, Trisha Curtis is a research analyst at EPRINC, SEPTEMBER 2010, http://eprinc.org/pdf/EPRINC-ENI-Macondo.pdf) //EY

There is No Alternative. The direct revenue consequence to the federal government, contribution to economic growth, employment, and energy security are all benefits from offshore drilling.This benefit streamplaces the federal government as the petroleum industrys mostimportant partner.The moratoriumisnot delivering any genuine reduction in net risk to the environment as domestic offshore production will shift to imports by tanker (a more risky transport mechanism). More

importantly, the offshore Alaska and deepwater Gulf of Mexico are the most prospective petroleum provinces for expanding domestic supply of crude oil. Leaving these resources in the ground will not prevent equivalent quantities of oil and gas from being consumed; instead, unrealized production of oil and gas will largely be replaced by imports. Although there is considerable debate over the size of the domestic offshoreresource, estimates of recoverable reserves continue to climband the value of the resource is substantial. EPRINC estimates that a failure to develop these important domestic reserves could reduce prospective federal revenues between 20-40 billion dollars per year. Large employment losses and revenues to the Gulf states are also at risk. According to a recent estimate from Minerals Management Service offshore operations in Americaprovide 150,000 directjobs. 8 The same operations support anadditional 285,000 indirect jobs, bringing total offshore employment (direct and indirect) to roughly 435,000 jobs. 9

China Sphere of Influence

ManufacturingLatin American manufacturing is declining due to China Oxford Analytica 10(LATIN AMERICA/CHINA: Global crisis boosted trade ties, Oxford Analytica Daily Brief Service, 9/15/10, ABI/INFORM)//Jax China has contributed to the recovery of the rate of growth in Latin America. GDP in the region is expected to expand at 5.2% in 2010 thanks, in large part, to high world demand for raw materials, oil and gas (see LATIN AMERICA: Trade rebound again commodity-dependent - September 14, 2010). Nevertheless, China's impact in Latin America has also created some problems: Primary products specialisation. In the last two years, Latin America has intensified its specialisation in natural resources. In 2008-09, exports of raw materials and primary-based manufactures amounted to 59% of all Latin American exports compared to 55% in 2005-06 and 44% in 2001-02. Four-fifths of Chinese imports from Latin America are primary goods, while a majority of Chinese exports to the region are manufacturing goods with increasing technological content. Expansion of Chinese manufacturing exports. Chinese products in sectors like clothing, toys, furniture and electronics have flooded Latin American countries and small and medium-sized firms are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. In 2008, 22% of Chinese imports of Latin America were basic manufacturing goods, 25% were manufacturing goods with medium technology and 35% were high technology products. Chinese competition in the US market. For example, in the apparel sector Central American countries have failed to compete with Chinese producers due to higher labour costs and lower productivity. In the first seven months of 2010, the share of DR-CAFTA countries in US imports of apparel was only 7.7% compared to 8.2% in 2008. Meanwhile, China's market share has increased from 35% to 41% in the same period.

Chinese competition is destroying Mexican manufacturing competitiveness Hearn 13 - PhD in Sociology, Researcher focusing on Asia and Latin America at the University of Sydney(Adrian, China and Latin America: Economy and Society, LATIN AMERICAN POLICY, Volume 4, Issue 1, June 2013, Wiley Online)//Jax Education programs also serve the broader purpose of reducing anxieties about China's perceived threat to the region. A case in point is Mexico, where relations with China are characterized less by cooperation than competition. Manufactured products, such as textiles, appliances, and automobile parts, account for more than 85% of Mexico's exports, but China manufactures the same products at a lower cost and consequently surpassed Mexico's position in the U.S. market in 2002. Competition with China has caused the loss of more than 672,000 Mexican jobs across 12 industrial sectors, with further losses resulting from the abolition of tariffs on shoes and textiles in December 2011. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama face similar problems and have experienced rising poverty and consequent disappointment with the Washington Consensus, CAFTA notwithstanding (Len-Manrquez, 2006; Villafae & Di Masi, 2002; Villafae & Uscanga, 2000). This situation has driven Mexico to begin emulating the resource-intensive strategies of other Latin American countries by increasing copper and oil production. Industry watchers note the potential of Mexican oil output to rival that of Saudi Arabia but stress the need for investment of some US$20 billion per year to exploit existing fields and explore discoveries such as the deepwater Noxal field in the Gulf of Mexico (Reuters,

2004; Rueda, 2005). China, the United States, and other countries are lining up to provide this investment, but the efforts of former presidents Felipe Caldern and Vicente Fox to allow foreign companies into the sector met with strong domestic opposition. President Enrique Pea Nieto, inaugurated in December 2012, has faced comparable opposition to this agenda and has already begun to articulate a more conciliatory position endorsing ongoing public control of the sector (Thomson, 2012). Nationalized by the progressive President Lzaro Crdenas in 1938 under the PEMEX Corporation, oil is one of Mexico's only significant economic resources to remain in national hands through the economic reforms of the past two decades. Public sensitivity about the matter stems largely from Mexico's rather sudden entry into the world market through the 1986 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (Dussel Peters, 2007, p. 20). A combination of competition in manufacturing and pressure to export oil, both resulting largely from the emergence of China, have essentially undermined the benefits of industrial upgrading that Mexico achieved in the mid-to-late 20th century. Adding to the bilateral tension, the Confederation of Industrial Chambers has asserted that, for every two manufactured products exported by Mexico, ten enter from China, and that between 900,000 and 1 million workers have lost their jobs (Mural, 2011, p. 4). The informal sector is woven tightly into these indicators, with 60% of clothing sold in Mexico thought to consist of contraband, most of which comes from China (Mayoral Jimnez, 2011; Rodrguez, 2011). Studies conducted in 2012 found that 53% of Mexicans aged 16 to 25 habitually purchase contraband and that the informal sector constituted 15% of GDP (Informador, 2012).

Research indicates optimistic views of Chinese investment are wrong, decline is more severe and widespread focus on primary goods, decrease competitiveness, destroying Latin American industry Jenkins 10 - D.Phil. from the University of Sussex in economics, Professor of Development Economics at the University of East Anglia,currently focusing on Chinese investment in Latin America (Rhys, China's Global Expansion and Latin America, Journal of Latin American Studies 42.2, November 2010, JSTOR)//Jax

Chinese competition in export markets As was pointed out in the Introduction to this essay, the early studies of the impact of China on other developing countries were prompted by concerns over the effects on those countries' exports of China's entry into the WTO. In the case of Latin America, this has been the most widely studied of the economic effects of China's rise. Most of the early studies were optimistic, concluding that, apart from Mexico, the countries of the region were less threatened by Chinese exports to third markets than were the Asian economies or the transition economies of Eastern Europe, and that the effects were confined to a few manufacturing industries. 24 It was also argued that over time, 'LAC's trade specialization pattern is becoming more complementary to the specialization pattern of China'.25 However, other authors, using more recent data and different methods, have argued that the impact of China on Latin American exports has been both more severe, in the case of Mexico, and more widespread, in terms of the countries that have been affected, than this optimistic view suggests. 26 These studies suggest that China's accession to the WTO in 2001 and the elimination of import quotas for textiles and garments under the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing in 2005 were followed by a significant increase in competition from China in developed country markets. Using a methodology based on constant market share analysis developed by a Brazilian economist, Jorge Chami Batista, the loss of exports in the US market as a result of the increase in China's market share was estimated for 18 Latin American countries for two periods, 1996-2001 and 2001-6 (see Table 3). 27 The results shows clearly that while the impact of China on the region's exports was very limited up to China's accession to the WTO in 2001, after 2001 exports to the United

States from the 18 countries were 9 per cent lower than they would have been if China had not increased its share of US imports. 28 Table 3 shows the countries most affected by Chinese competition in the US market in the period between 2001 and 2006. Mexico is third after the Dominican Republic and El Salvador. Other Central American countries are also among the most severely impacted, while even the countries of Mercosur have lost market share to China in the United States. Countries not listed, such as the Andean countries, have been relatively unaffected, reflecting the fact that the bulk of their exports to the United States are of primary products and resource-based manufactures, which do not compete with Chinese exports of manufactured goods. Table 3. Latin American Countries Most Affected by Loss of Exports to China in the US Market, 1996-2001, 2001-6 (% of Country's Exports to the US) Source: Own elaboration from United States International Trade Commission data available at dataweb.usitc.gov. Thus the competitive threat from China, far from being restricted to a few countries and diminishing over time, is both widespread and increasingly significant. This is certainly more in line with the perceptions of the private sector in the region than with the optimistic views put forward by the international institutions. 29 The debate over the impacts of China on Latin American exports takes nation-states as the key units for analysis and regards the 'threats' as being at the country level. It should be noted, however, that changing trade patterns often result from the strategies of multinational corporations over the allocation of production and do not reflect the outcome of competition between firms based in different countries. The case of the 'threat' posed by China to personal computer (PC) exports from Mexico to the United States illustrates this very clearly. Between 2001 and 2006 China's share of US imports of PCs, peripherals and parts more than trebled from 14.2 per cent to 45.5 per cent, while Mexico's fell by almost half, from 13.9 per cent to 7.5 per cent . 30 This was, to a large extent, the result of several multinational firms, such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Selectron, transferring production to China. In these circumstances, where capital is globalised, the main losers from 'Chinese' competition are the workers who lose their jobs or see their wages and working conditions deteriorating. This reality is obscured by an approach that takes nation-states as its focus. The example of the PC industry also illustrates the close connection that may exist between competition in export markets and diversion of FDI flows, which have tended to be analysed separately in the existing literature on China and Latin America. When a US multinational takes a strategic decision to relocate certain products or production processes from Mexico to China to supply the US market, this is reflected both in changes to the share of Mexico and China in US imports and in changes to the flows of FDI from the United States to Mexico and China. A global value chain analysis brings out these interconnections in a way that approaches based on trade and investment flows between countries do not. 31 Exports to China The rapid expansion of the Chinese market has made a significant contribution to the growth of Latin America's exports from the late 1990s. The elasticity of Chinese demand for imports from the region was found by Daniel Lederman et al. to be high, indicating a major dynamic boost for the area. 32 China is now one of the top three export markets for a number of Latin American countries.33 It is also worth noting, however, that not all the countries of the region have shared in this export growth. In 2008 China accounted for over 10 per cent of the total exports of seven Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Peru and Uruguay), but for other countries in the region its significance was relatively minor. 34 Some authors have raised concerns over the pattern of specialisation in trade between Latin America and China.35 Not only have the bulk of exports been of primary products and resource-based manufactures, but their share, particularly of the least processed products, has increased over time (see Table 1). A related concern is that exports to China from the region are further concentrated in a narrow range of commodities (copper, iron ore, soybeans) and show little sign of diversifying. It might be argued that the large share of primary products in Latin American exports to China is simply a reflection of comparative advantage based on factor endowments: Latin America is endowed with natural resources, while China has an abundance of labour. It would be a mistake to think of comparative advantage as a given,

however. Like other East Asian countries before it, China has been actively creating a comparative advantage in key sectors. 36 It has used a range of trade and industrial policies to develop certain stages of global value chains within China, which has led to Latin American producers increasingly specialising in the early, low-value-added stages of the chains. An illustration of this has been the development of the soybean value chain which supplies the growing demand for animal feed and vegetable oil in China.37 Although Argentina's total exports of soybeans and soybean products to China have increased rapidly since the late 1990s, this growth has been very unevenly distributed, with exports increasing most in the case of unprocessed soybeans while soybean meal exports to China have virtually disappeared. Compared to Argentina's exports to the rest of the world, its exports to China are much more heavily concentrated in the early stages of the value chain. This is explained by the decision of the Chinese authorities in the late 1990s to develop a local oilseed crushing industry. Several promotional measures were implemented to encourage investment in the industry and to increase its competitiveness. A number of modern crushing plants were established, most of them located in the coastal provinces, near the ports, to ensure easy access to imported raw materials Leading multinational companies such as ADM, Bunge and Cargill, which possessed crushing plants in Argentina, invested in China and now import soybeans from Argentina to supply their Chinese plants. Evidence from the other major value chains in which Latin America is a significant exporter to China suggests a broadly similar pattern. In iron and steel, Brazil's trade with China shows an increasing specialisation in iron ore and concentrates as China rapidly develops its domestic steel industry; in copper, refining capacity has expanded in China with Chile exporting ore and cathodes. 38 As in the case of competition in export markets, a detailed analysis of particular value chains can help us to understand better the processes that underlie the observed patterns of trade.

General China Bad

Chinese hackers could shut down the grid for up to 6 months Hjortdal 11 - M.Sc. in Political Science, researcher associated with CHINA-SEC, Centre for Military Studies at the University ofCopenhagen (Magnus, China's Use of Cyber Warfare: Espionage Meets Strategic Deterrence, Journal of Strategic Security, 2011, http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=jss)//Jax

The Deterrence Effect on the United States: Electricity Grids and an Airbase Cyber capabilities have a real deterrent effect when a state shows its capabilities to the world. This happened when the United States became aware that its electricity network had been hacked into in 2009 and that parts of the network allegedly could be shut down whenever the hacker wished to do so.51 Other sources, even though a little more skeptical about the scope of such intrusions, indicate that although these foreign intruders did not cause immediate damage, they left behind software programs that could be used in the future to disrupt this critical infrastructure.52 This attack was traced to China, and the chief of counterintelligence in the United States at the time stated that "[w]e have seen Chinese network operations inside certain of our electricity grids."53 The fact that Americans were not able to protect their electricity network is one critical aspect, but another is that this shows that the United States could have a serious problem in meeting the challenge of an ambitious Chinese cyber program.54 U.S. security experts have previously expressed their concerns. After the April 2007 cyber attacks on Estonia, following a surge of nationalism from Russia that caused a severe breakdown and paralyzed the heavily IT-based Estonian infrastructure, Pentagon cyber security expert Sami Saydjari told the U.S. Congress that "a similar mass cyber attack could leave the United States without power for six monthssufficient time to allow China to occupy Taiwan, or Russia to 'liberate' Georgia."55 Such statements pinpoint the vulnerability of U.S. critical infrastructure. At present, the United States is also behind China with regard to the training of engineers who can be used in cyberrelated functions.56

Chinese can also negate the US airforce Hjortdal 11 - M.Sc. in Political Science, researcher associated with CHINA-SEC, Centre for Military Studies at the University ofCopenhagen (Magnus, China's Use of Cyber Warfare: Espionage Meets Strategic Deterrence, Journal of Strategic Security, 2011, http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=jss)//Jax

In 2009, there was a forced electronic entry into the Joint Strike Fighter program and large amounts of data were copied.59 According to present and former employees at the Pentagon, the attack can be traced to China.60 This could mean that it would be easy for China to defend itself against the aircraft (which many western countries expect to acquire) and, assuming the attackers have acquired enough data, they may even be able to copy parts of it.61 The American chief of counterintelligence has been reported as saying that "our networks are being mapped" with reference to American flight traffic control, and also as having warned about a situation in which "a fighter pilot can't trust his radar."62

Hegemony stuffPLA is incapable of projecting military power in the squo, and while the PLA has made no public announcement of establishing a Latin American base now, longterm it would be consistent with PLA ideology. This would pose significant threat to you US security in its backyard Ellis 11 - Assistant Professor of National Security Studies in the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University(R. Evan, CHINA-LATIN AMERICA MILITARY ENGAGEMENT: GOOD WILL, GOOD BUSINESS., AND STRATEGIC POSITION, Strategic Studies Institute, Aug. 2011, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA548685) //Jax

Positioning China Strategically in the Region. Chinese military thinkers, as others around the world, recognize the implications of the emergence of the PRC as a principal global actor, including the need to prepare for large-scale hostilities to protect these global interests. Although the PLA is very careful to cast its military preparations as defensive in nature, debates within the PLA over the need to develop a deterrent force, and references to an active defense16 implicitly acknowledge that Chinese thinkers have contemplated the necessity of carrying a future conflict to the adversary. Moreover, although the PRC currently lacks the capability to project significant military capability beyond Asia, the pursuit of defense in depth by the PLA Navy foresees conducting the battle as far away from its shores as capabilities will allow, while references in the 2008 Defense White Paper to close coordination between military struggle and political, economic, and diplomatic endeavors17 suggest a global approach to thinking about warfare. Nothing in the public discourse of the Chinese leadership, policy papers, or debates suggests that Latin America is considered in the short term as a base for military operations. Nonetheless, in the long term, when the PRC is both economically and militarily more powerful than it is today, the ability to deter a strategic adversary such as the United States through holding it at risk in its own theater, and to disrupt its ability to project power at home before those forces can reach the PRC, is consistent with the aforementioned concepts, including a holistic, asymmetric approach towards warfare.18 Within this broad approach, Chinas military ties in Latin America afford geographically-specific benefits, such as collecting intelligence on the operation of U.S. forces, creating diversionary crises, closing down strategic chokepoints such as the Panama Canal, or conducting disruption operations in close proximity to the United States.

Chinese telecommunication activities in Latin America would be a threat in a US-Sino conflict Ellis 11 - Assistant Professor of National Security Studies in the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University(R. Evan, CHINA-LATIN AMERICA MILITARY ENGAGEMENT: GOOD WILL, GOOD BUSINESS., AND STRATEGIC POSITION, Strategic Studies Institute, Aug. 2011, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA548685) //Jax

With respect to telecommunications, another sector with strategic value in the information operations and defense technology realm, Chinese firms are major players in virtually every major nation in Central and South America. The principal companies involved are Huawei, ZTE Corporation, and to a lesser extent Shanghai Alcatel Bell. Both Huawei and ZTE have established regional hubs for operations and training in Brazil. Both have participated in various projects in the modernization and expansion of major South American telecommunications architectures, including those of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Venezuela.129 In the cases of both Huawei and ZTE, Venezuela presented the companies, and the PRC, with a major commercial opportunity, with each establishing a cell phone manufacturing facility in the country, with plans to export production from the factories into other

parts of the region.130 In addition, Huawei has played a major role in building Venezuelas fiber optic network, and has been involved in a series of military projects as noted earlier, such as the establishment of a command and control facility, and the training of Venezuelan military personnel. In the case of Shanghai Alcatel Bell, the company is the principal contractor laying a new fiber optic cable tying Cuba and Jamaica into the China-built Venezuela telecommunications infrastructure.131 In Honduras, although the nation does not diplomatically recognize the PRC, a Chinese consortium was reportedly interested in purchasing the state telecommunications firm Empresa Hondurea de Telecomunicaciones (Hondutel), pursuant to plans to privatize it.132 As in aviation and space, Chinese activities in telecommunications have strategic military implications in two areas . First, they support Chinese efforts to acquire and improve technical capabilities in this strategically important sector. Second, as a complement to space cooperation, when Chinese companies sell hardware and build the telecommunications infrastructure in a region, the PRC is afforded opportunities to exploit these networks for future information collection and disruption activities in the unlikely but possible event of a future conflict with the United States. Moreover, such a presence makes possible the use of commercial telecommunication offices and activities as cover for the potential introduction of personnel into the region and performance of information operations.

Current Chinese presence in Latin America provides a spring board for greater military presence Ellis 11 - Assistant Professor of National Security Studies in the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University(R. Evan, CHINA-LATIN AMERICA MILITARY ENGAGEMENT: GOOD WILL, GOOD BUSINESS., AND STRATEGIC POSITION, Strategic Studies Institute, Aug. 2011, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA548685) //Jax

Chinese Physical Presence within Latin America with Military-Strategic Implications. To date, the PRC has been extremely cautious to avoid establishing an overt military presence in Latin America that could facilitate the emergence of a consensus within the United States and its allies to oppose PRC engagement with the region. Where it has done so, it has maintained a very low profile, or emphasized the scientific or nonmilitary character of that presence. As noted previously, the PRC has had military police in Haiti as part of the MINUSTAH peacekeeping force since September 2004.133 Such participation has arguably provided a valuable learning experience and engagement opportunity for them. While far more benign than other forms of presence, such as military bases, its activities in Haiti allows the PRC to gain experience and develop contacts in the region, while fostering good will among Latin American militaries that could facilitate its military access to the region in the future. In Cuba, the PRC reportedly has a physical presence at three or more Soviet-era monitoring facilities: Lourdes, Bejucal,134 and Santiago de Cuba.135 With their proximity to the United States, the bases are reportedly used by the Chinese for the collection of signals intelligence, such as intercepting radio and cellphone transmissions, and also for the operation of a cyber espionage and training facility in the country. In addition to their explicitly military presence in Haiti and Cuba, the PRC also has a series of government-operated scientific bases in Antarctica, since establishing its first base there, Great Wall, in 1985.136 Although the sites are not of a military character, they are supported by the PLA Navy, with the 1st Task Group established in 2004 for the specific purpose of supporting the base and conducting operations in the southern ocean.137 Although the frigid temperatures and remoteness of its Antarctic facilities from the majority of Latin American states limit their military utility, as with Haiti they have provided opportunities to interact with the Argentine and Chilean militaries. The Chilean base in Antarctica, for example, is located in close physical proximity to that of the Chinese, providing opportunities for communication and

collaboration. In addition, some have speculated that the PRC presence in Antarctica may strengthen its claim to exploit mineral deposits there,138 particularly when the current international treaty banning mining in Antarctica expires in 2048.139 Beyond Haiti, Cuba, and Antarctica, the presence of Chinese logistics companies in major ports of the region arguably has some strategic military value, presenting a platform from which the PRC could smuggle people or material into the region under the cover of commercial operations, in the event that relations between the United States and the PRC significantly worsen in the coming decades. Indeed, there is a precedent for the use of Chinese commercial shipping for military purposes. In 1991, the PRC enlisted the help of the commercial cargo ship Yongmen, owned by China Overseas Shipping Company (COSCO), to evacuate Chinese embassy personnel from Somalia.140 While it is important to acknowledge the long-term strategic military value of the PRC physical presence in Latin America, it is also necessary to put it in proper context. It would be very difficult for the PLA to employ this commercial presence to support its own projection of military power in the region, since com- mercial facilities cannot be readily transformed into military bases. Moreover, the proximity to the United States of any improvised military facilities would make them highly vulnerable to military action in the event of overt hostilities. Nonetheless, in such a worst case scenario, such a presence would arguably allow the PRC to more easily deny the use of those facilities in the future by U.S. and allied warships, or to disrupt commercial flows that support the United States. The possibility that the firm Hutchison-Whampoa could use its port operations at Cristobal and Balboa in the Panama Canal Zone to close the canal to U.S. warships is illustrative.141

Lots of Random Stuff

China war Good

US intervention prevents escalationsanctions Cooke 10 [Shamus Cooke=news correspondent, Another U.S. War? Obama Threatens China and Iran, February 1 2010http://www.globalresearch.ca/another-u-s-war-obama-threatens-china-and-iran/17330] The possibility of yet another U.S. war became more real last week, when the Obama administration sharply confronted both China and Iran. The first aggressive act was performed by Obamas Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who warned China that it must support serious economic sanctions against Iran (an act of war). Clinton

said: China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supply. The implication here is that China will be cut off from a major energy source if they do not support U.S. foreign policy this, too, would equal an act of war.

China cant challenge the USthe war will be quick Reed 11 [John Reed= news correspondent, PLA: Chinese Military Doesnt Compare to U.S. Military,http://defensetech.org/2011/05/19/pla-chinese-military-doesnt-compare-to-u-s-military/] This is interesting. The PLAs top officer, Gen. Chen Bingde,

May 19, 2011,

announced during his recent visit to Washington that Chinas is no where close to matching the United States in terms of military capability. Yes, werefretting over Chinas rise as an economic power, but according to the general, his nation has a long way to go before it catc hes the U.S. militarily. From Fox News: Through my visit over the past couple of days in the United States,

I am surprised by the sophistication of the U.S. military, including its weapons and equipment and doctrines and so on, Peoples Liberation Army leader General Chen Bingde said. I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States. As a matter of fact, the reconnaissance activities along Chinas coast by U.S. military aircraft and vessels are seen in China asdeterrents. For emphasis, the general added, What Im trying to say is that we do not have the capability to challenge the United States. He even went so far as to try to answer the question thats long been on U.S. defense officials minds: What do Chinese officials mean when they says they want to defend what is theirs with their new military might? As it is known to all, the United States is a super-power in the world today; how can China easily have the ability to challenge it? That is simply not part of Chinese culture and we do not have that capability. We would strive for world peace, civility and development and well being of the whole humankindThe

United States has far more advanced weapons and equipment. Chen took some exception to the accusation, insisting the routine test flight was not targeted at Gates visit, and questionedwhy similar issues were frequently raised to China but not the United States. The general insisted, After 30 years of reform and opening up, Chinas economy has made tremendous progress and we are now the worlds second-largest economyOur

efforts to grow our economy is to ensure that the 1.3 billion people are better off. We do not want to use the money to buy equipment or advanced weapons systems to challenge the United States. From the generals answer, it sounds like China has no intention of getting into Cold War II with the United States. Arms races can be notoriously expensive and distracting from the buildup of other sectors needed to support a healthy economy; something China is strongly focused on. For now, it seems like China wants to be the big military power in the region while focusing more on the long-term growth of its economy. This reminds me of how the U.S.overtook Britain as the worlds most powerful economy decades before it overtook the empire in terms of military and global p olitical might. However, once China overtakes the U.S. as the worlds largest economy (predicted to happen sometime in the next 20 years if current trends hold) w ho knows what kind of military investments it will make?

China War Bad

With communism dead, the Chinese administration has relied very heavily and successfully onnationalism as an ideological support for its rule. The problem is that if clashes erupt over these islands, Beijing may find itself in a position where it cannot compromise without severe damage to its domestic legitimacy very much the position of the European great powers in 1914. In these disputes, Chinese nationalism collides with other nationalisms particularly that of Vietnam, which embodies strong historical resentments. The hostility to China of Vietnam and most of the other regional states is at once Americas greatest asset and greatest danger. It means that most of Chinas neighbors want the United States to remain militarily present in the region. As White argues, even if the United States were to withdraw, it is highly unlikely that these countries would submit meekly to Chinese hegemony. But if the United States were to commit itself to a military alliance with these countries against China, Washington would risk embroiling America in their territorial disputes. In the event of a military clash between Vietnamand China, Washington would be faced with the choice of either holding aloof and seeing its credibility as an ally destroyed, or fighting China.

Neither the United States nor China would win the resulting war outright, but they would certainly inflict catastrophic damage on each other and on the world economy. If the conflict escalated into a nuclear exchange, modern civilization would be wrecked. Even a prolonged period of military and strategic rivalry with an economically mighty China will gravely weaken Americas global position. Indeed, U.S. overstretch is already apparent for example in Washingtons neglect of the crumblingstates of Central America.

US will lose a china war Snyder 13 [Michael Snyder=news corrispondent, Why The Next War With China Could Go Very Badly For The United States, May 29 2013,http://www.infowars.com/why-the-next-war-with-china-could-go-very-badly-for-the-united-states/] Most Americans

assume that the U.S. military is so vastly superior to everyone else that no other nation that assumption is dead wrong. In recent years, the once mammoth technological gap between the U.S. military and the Chinese military has been closing at a frightening pace. China has been accomplishing this by brazenly stealing our technology and hacking into our computer systems. The Pentagon and the Obama administration know all about this, but they dont do anything about it. Perhaps the fact that China owns about a trillion dollars of our national debt has something to do with that. In any event, today China has the largest military in the world and the second largest military budget in the world. They have stolen plans for our most advanced jets, helicopters, ships and missile systems. It is estimated that stealing our technology has saved China about 25 years of research and development. In addition, China is rapidly developing a new generation of strategic weapons that could potentially enable it to actually win a future war against the United States. At one time such a notion would have been unthinkable, but as you will see below, the next war with China could go very badly for the United States.would ever dream of fighting a full-scale war against us. Unfortunately,

China War Inevitable

Conflict is inevitable characteristic of rising power Friedberg 05 (The Future of U.S.-China Relations, Aaron L. Friedberg, Aaron L. Friedberg is Professor of Politics and InternationalAffairs at Princeton University. From June 2003 to June 2005, he served as Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning in the Office of the Vice President, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Fall 2005), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3002_pp007-045_friedberg.pdf) //EY

In contrast to liberals, most realists are pessimists. Where liberals see progressive forces leading the world ineluctably to ever-higher levels of prosperity and peace, realists see inescapable laws of nature compelling a recurrent struggle for power and survival. For liberals, history is a smoothly ascending curve; for realists, it is a vicious circle. The reason, most contemporary realists claim, is the persistence of international anarchy. In the absence of anyhigher authority to resolve disputes and impose order, peace has usually proved fleeting and conflict has been the norm. Under conditions of anarchy, it is the material power and, in particular, the military strength of the various units in an international system that has typically been decisive in shaping the patterns of relations among them.25 chinas power: rising

For realist pessimists, the single most important feature of the PRC today is its rising power . Everything else, including the likely character of the U.S.-China relationship, follows from this fact. Taking aggregate economic capacity as a rough surrogate for overall national power, it is apparent that Chinas growth has been extraordinarily rapid. Since the start of economic reforms in 1978, the PRCs gross national product (GNP) is thought to have increased by a factor of four and, according to some estimates, it could double again by the middle of the second decade of the twenty-first century.26 What is especially impressiveabout the Chinese economy is not only the speed with which it appears to be expanding but its growing mass and enormous potential. Given the sheer size of its population and the rising productivity of its workers, China may one day regain its historic position as the worlds largest economy. Although such projections are fraught with difficulties and uncertainties, some experts have calculated that Chinas economy could overtake that of the United States as early as 2015.27 The combination of the speed and the magnitude of Chinas growth in recent decades appears to be unprecedented. The closest analogy is probably the emergence of the United States as the worlds prepon derant economy over the course of the nineteenth century.

As was true of the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, so too is Chinas rapidly growing economy bringing expanding military capabilities in its train. A fast-growing GNP has made itcomparatively easy for the PRC to sustain a large and expanding military effort and, in recent years, Chinas spending on arms and military equipment has grown at an impressive pace.28 The

rising levels of productivity, per capita incomes, and technological competence that accompany economic growth should also translate into an increasing ability both to absorb sophisticated weapons imported from foreign suppliers and eventually to develop such systems indigenously.29 Although the picture is mixed, and the PRC continues to lag in many areas, these expectations too are borne out by the general pattern of Chinese military development over the last several decades. There are good reasons to expect that China will be able to build and deploy more increasingly capable military systems in the years ahead.30chinas aims: expanding Realist pessimists note that, throughout history, rising

powers have tended to be troublemakers, at least insofar as their more established counterparts in the international system are concerned. This is the case, in the realistsview, regardless of regime type; it was as true of a rising, democratic United States as it was of a rising, autocratic Germany. As Samuel Huntington has pointed out, The external expansion of the UK and France, Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union and the United States coincided with phases of intense industrialization and economic development.31

There appear to be a number of reasons for this pattern. As a states capabilities grow, its leaders tend to define their interests more expansively and to seek a greater degree of influence over what is going on around them. Rising powers seek not only to secure their frontiers but to reach out beyond them, taking steps to ensure access tomarkets, materials, and transportation routes; to protect their citizens far from home, defend their foreign friends and allies, and promulgate their values; and, in general, to have what they consider to be their legitimate say in the affairs of their region and of the wider world. This correlation between growing power and expanding interests has been succinctly summarized by Robert Gilpin:

A more

wealthy and more powerful state... will select a larger bundle of security and welfare goals than a less wealthy and less powerful state.32 As they seek to assert themselves, rising powers are often drawn to challenge territorial boundaries, international institutional arrangements, and hierarchies of prestige that were put in place when they were relatively weak. Their leaders and people often feel that they were unfairly left out when the pie was divided up, and may even believe that, because of their prior weakness, they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs. Like Germany at the turn of the twentieth century, rising powers tend to want their place in the sun, and this often brings them into conflict with more established great powers, which are typically the architects and principal beneficiaries ofthe existing international system.33

The collision between the expanding interests of a rising power and those of its more established counterparts can be dealt with in a number of ways, but the resulting disputes are seldom resolved peacefully. Recognizing the growing threat to its position, a dominant power (or coalition of status quo powers) may attempt to useforce preventively to destroy a rising state before it can achieve its full potential. Less bellicose, established powers have also at times sought to appease emerging states, looking for ways to satisfy their demands and ambitions without conflict and to engage them and incorporate them peacefully into an existing international order. However sincere and well intentioned these efforts may be, they have usually failed. Sometimes the reason is clearly the character of the demands of the rising state. As

was true of Adolf Hitlers Germany, for example, a rising power may have ambitions that are so extensive as to be impossible for the status quo powers to satisfy without effectively committing suicide. Even when the demands being madeof them are less extensive, the status quo powers may be too reluctant to make reasonable concessions, thereby fueling the frustrations and resentments of the rising power, or too eager to do so, feeding its ambitions and leading to escalating demands. Successful

policies of engagement/appeasement are certainly possible in theory, but in practice they have proven to be difficult to implement.34 Looking at the raw facts of its expanding economy and growing military capabilities, most realist pessimists would be content to conclude that China is a rising power and that, as such, it is unlikely to behave differently than have others of its type throughout history. Thus Huntington, after describing the correlation in past cases between rapid internal growth and external expansion, predicts that China too will undoubtedly be moving into such a phase in the coming decades.35 Similarly, according to John Mearsheimer, so long as Chinas power continues to grow, China, like all previous potential hegemons, [will] be strongly inclined to become a real hegemon.36 Some analysts go a step further, arguing that China is especially likely to behave assertively, even at the risk of coming into conflict with others. Recent Chinese history, the century of humiliation that began with the Opium Wars of the1840s and ended only with the final expulsion of foreign powers from the mainland after World War II, appears to have left Chinas leaders and its people acutely sensitive to perceived slights to national honor and prestige and especially alert to threats around their periphery.37 As a

result of the painful experiences of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, contemporary Chinese strategists may be even more eager than they might otherwise be to establish a sphere of influence or zone of control that would prevent such threats from reemerging in the future.38Reaching even further back into the past, other observers point to the fact that, before its decline and domination by outside powers, China was for many centuries the preponderant force in Asia and the hub of a Sinocentric Asian international system. As they adapt to the reality of their growing power and look for models to guide their behavior under increasingly favorable conditions, the

leadership in Beijing could hearken back to this earlier era of glory and seek to reestablish China as East Asias preponderant power.39 Some U.S. government agencies have concluded that Chinas current leaders aim to maximize *Chinas+ influence within East Asia relative to the U.S. or, more bluntly, to become the preeminent power in Asia.40 If this is true, and assuming that the United States continues to adhere to its century-old policy of opposing the dominance of either half of Eurasia by a hostile power or coalition, the stage will be set for an intense and possibly protracted strategic competition between the two Pacific giants.41

Conflict inevitable because the governmental form isnt stable Friedberg 05 (The Future of U.S.-China Relations, Aaron L. Friedberg, Aaron L. Friedberg is Professor of Politics and InternationalAffairs at Princeton University. From June 2003 to June 2005, he served as Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning in the Office of the Vice President, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Fall 2005), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3002_pp007-045_friedberg.pdf) //EY

Liberal Pessimists Just as there can be optimistic realists, so also it is possible to be pessimistic on what are essentially liberal groundsthat is, with reference primarily to the internal structures and domestic political dynamics of the United States and Chinaand to the interactions between them that may arise as a result of their very different regimes.57 China: an authoritarian regime in transition? Whatever it may eventually become, most observers would agree that China today is neither a totalitarian state nor a democracy, but rather an authoritarian regime of dubious legitimacy with an uncertain grip on power. Its leaders are the inheritors of an ideology that has lost most of its appeal and, far from being able to rely on the freely given support of their people, they are heavily dependent on the military and domestic security services for the preservation of domestic order. The Beijing government now bases its claim to rule less on communist principles than on the promise of continued increases in prosperity (and the avoidance of social chaos), combined with appeals to nationalism. This is a dangerous and unstable mixture. If economic progress falters, the present government will have little choice but to lean even more heavily on nationalist appeals as its sole remaining source of support. It may also be inclined to resort to assertive external policies as a way of rallying the Chinese people and turning their energies and frustrations outward, most likely toward Taiwan or Japan or the United States, rather than inward, toward Beijing. Indeed, many analysts believe that Chinas rulers have already shown an increased inclination to behave in this way over the course of the past decade.58 These tendencies toward hypernationalist rhetoric and action may actually be made worse by movement toward a more open and competitive political system. Based on a statistical analysis of historical cases, Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder have concluded that it is precisely when nations are in transition from authoritarianism toward democracy that they are most likely to initiate conflict with their neighbors. Both stable autocracies and stable democracies are generally less war-prone.59 The reasons for this pattern appear to lie in the internal processes of societies in which the pressures for political participation are increasing, but in which effective democratic institutions have yet to emerge. Elites in such societies often use militant nationalist appeals in an attempt to mobilize and channel mass support without surrendering their grip on power. In Snyders words, the resort to nationalism has often been accompanied by militarism and by the scapegoating of enemies of the nation at home and abroad.60 If past patterns hold, and if China is indeed in the early stages of democratization, the road ahead may well be bumpy. Ironically, the prospects for a worsening in U.S.China relations may actually be greater than they would be if China were to remain a stable autocracy. Suppose that China does come to more closely resemble a fully functioning democracy, with elections, competing political parties, and an open press. Will this lead to a transformation in relations between it and the United States? Liberal pessimists might agree that, in the long run, this will probably be the case. But they would also point out that even a much more democratic China may still be prone to behave in ways that could bring it into conflict with the United States. Democracies are not always placid or peaceful, especially in the early stages of their political development. Some observers have suggested that, at least for a time, a democratic government in Beijing could well be more nationalistic and assertive than the present regime. According to one scholar, such a regime free from the debilitating concerns for its own survival but likely driven by popular emotions, could make

the rising Chinese power a much more assertive, impatient, belligerent, even aggressive force, at least during the unstable period of fast ascendance to the ranks of a world-class power.61 The united states: a crusading liberal democracy? Changes in Chinese political institutions may increase the likelihood that China will collide with the United States. If China does not change, however, certain persistent features of Americas domestic regime appear likely to incline the United States toward conflict with the PRC. This conclusion follows first of all from the obverse of the democratic peace argument. Democracies may be less likely to come into conflict with other democracies, but they have historically been more prone to be suspicious of, and hostile toward, what they perceive to be nondemocratic regimes. As Michael Doyle has pointed out, The very constitutional restraint, shared commercial interests, and international respect for individual rights that promote peace among liberal societies can exacerbate conflicts in relations between liberal and nonliberal societies. Relations between liberal and nonliberal states are always conducted in an atmosphere of suspicion in part because of the perception by liberal states that nonliberal states are in a permanent state of aggression against their own people.62 Whatever it may ultimately become, China is not now a liberal democracy. It should therefore come as no surprise that many Americans regard it with suspicion and a measure of hostility. Seen in this light, disputes between the United States and China over human rights (for example) are not just a minor irritant in the relationship. They are instead symptomatic of a deeper difficulty that cannot easily be smoothed over. From the U.S. perspective, human rights violations are not only intrinsically wrong; they are also a sure sign that a regime is evil and illegitimate, and therefore cannot be trusted. The possibility of a stable relationship with such a regime is remote, at best. If the United States is more likely to be hostile toward China because it is not a democracy, it is also more inclined to assist polities that it perceives to be democratic if they are threatened by China, even ifthis is not what a pure realpolitik calculation of its interests might seem to demand. Thus it was one thing for Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon to distance the United States from Taiwan when it was widely perceived by Americans to have a corrupt, authoritarian government.

It will be considerably more difficult for future U.S. leaders to do so to the extent that the American people come to regard Taiwan as a functioning fellow democracyeven if U.S. support for Taiwan risks a worsening in relations with the PRC and perhaps even if it threatens to lead to war. For better or worse, the United States is a profoundly ideological country, and its foreign policy has always been shaped by its ideals, even when those might appear to conflict with its material interests.63

Interdependence doesnt solve Friedberg 05 (The Future of U.S.-China Relations, Aaron L. Friedberg, Aaron L. Friedberg is Professor of Politics and InternationalAffairs at Princeton University. From June 2003 to June 2005, he served as Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning in the Office of the Vice President, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Fall 2005), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3002_pp007-045_friedberg.pdf) //EY

Even though the domestic structures of the Chinese and U.S. regimes are obviously profoundly different, their internal workings may be similar in certain respects. Some liberal pessimists would argue that, just as there are groups in China whose narrow political or bureaucratic interests may be served by a competitive relationship with the United States, so also there may be groups in the United States whose members believe they will gain from U.S.-China tension. Such groups will naturally be inclined to favor more confrontational policies, and they will point to each others utterances as evidence of the need for such policies. In short, there may exist a tacit, mutually reinforcing alliance of hawks that will make it much harder to achieve better, more stable relations. Assessments that overlook the existence of such factors will overstate the prospects for harmony between the United States and the PRC.65

As part of a new resolve to play a more assertive role, the US has reinforced and strengthened its strategic ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Australia and Japan. It is pertinent to remember that wars have often been caused by miscalculation rather than deliberation. And this is even more so when an emerging power is staking its claims impinging on the existing superpowers perceived interests and/or seen to be threatening its regional allies. This is how the two World Wars started. Even as Iran has come centre-stage of another likely military conflict in the Middle East with the US and its western allies determined to force it to forgo its nuclear programme, the Asia-Pacific region is emerging as another potential trouble spot pitting China against the US. With the US now disengaged from Iraq, and in the process of military withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, it has dawned on Washington that China has strengthened its role in the Asia-Pacific and is slowly, but steadily, working to push it out of the region. China regards the Asia-Pacific as its strategic space and the US as an external power. The US has decided to hit back by declaring that it is not going anywhere and, indeed, will beef up its military presence in the region. Straddling both the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans, the US considers itself a legitimate Pacific country. US-China relations have never been easy. They are likely to become even more complicated after the recent announcement of a US defence review that prioritises the Asia-Pacific region. Even though the review seeks to make sizeable cuts of about $500 billion in the USs defence budget over the next 10 years, it would not be at the cost of its engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, as President Obama told reporters, We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific Washingtons decision to make the Asia-Pacific a priority strategic area was presaged during Obamas recent visit to Australia. He hit out at China on a wide range of issues, while announcing an enhanced US role, including the use of Australian bases/facilities for an effective military presence. He urged China to act like a grown up and play by the rules. Elaborating on this in an address to the Australian parliament, he said, We need growth that is fair, where every nation plays by the rules; where workers rights are respected and our businesses can compete on a level playing field; where the intellectual property and new technologies that fuel innovation are protected; and where currencies are market-driven, so no nation has an unfair advantage. This catalogue of US economic grievances against China has been the subject of intermittent discussions between the two countries without any satisfactory results. On the question of human rights and freedoms in China, Obama said, Prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty. The US is upping the ante in its relations with China, with Asia-Pacific centre-stage. It does not accept Chinas sovereignty claims in the South China Sea and its island chains. This has caused naval incidents with Vietnam, the Philippines, and with Japan in the East China Sea, and a close naval skirmish or two with the US. As part of a new resolve to play a more assertive role, the US has reinforced and strengthened its strategic ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Australia and Japan. In announcing cuts to the defence budget over the next decade, President Obama seemed keen to dispel the notion that this would make the US a lesser military power. He said, The world must know the US is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats. The USs continued military superiority has a catch though, which is that the US will be adjusting its long-standing doctrine of being able to wage two wars simultaneously. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta maintains that the US military would still be able to confront more than one threat at a time by being more flexible and adaptable than in the past.

Be that as it may, the increased focus on Asia-Pacific has upset China. Its hope of making the region into its own strategic backyard, with the US distracted in the Middle East and its economy in the doldrums, might not be that easy with the new US strategic doctrine prioritising Asia-Pacific. Not surprisingly, the Chinese media has not reacted kindly to it. According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, the US should abstain from flexing its muscles, as this will not help solve regional disputes. It added, If the US indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop *literally and figuratively+, and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability. The Global Times called on the Chinese government to develop more long-range strike weapons to deter the US Navy. Australia, the USs closet regional ally, fears that Chinas rising economic and military power has the potential of destabilising the region. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd hopes though (as he told the Asia Society in New York) that there was nothing inevitable about a future war between the US and China, emphasising the need to craft a regional architecture that recognised the coexistence of both countries, and the acceptance of US alliances in the region. He also saw hope (as a counterpoint to China) in the collective economic might of Japan, India, Korea, Indonesia and Australia, which means that, hopefully, Chinas perceived threat might be balanced and contained with the USs enhanced commitment to the region, and the rising clout of a cluster of regional countries. There are any number of issues that could become a flashpoint for future conflict, like Taiwan, Korea, the South China Sea and its islands, the maritime dispute with Japan and so on. With China determined to uphold its core national interests, and the US and others equally committed to, for instance, freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, it only needs a spark to ignite a prairie fire. As it is, neither China nor the US wants military conflict between their two countries. Chinas official position was expounded the other day in Beijing by its Vice-President Xi Jinping, who is also the countrys president-in-waiting. Xi, who is expected to visit the US next month, hoped that the US can view Chinas strategic intentionsin a sensible and objective way, and be committed to develop a cooperative partnership. And he emphasised that: Ultimate caution should be given to major and sensitive issues that concern each countrys core interests to avoid any distraction and setbacks in China-US relations. The problem, though, is that when it comes to core interests, objectivity is generally the first casualty. For instance, the US complains that Chinas strategic doctrine, if there is one, lacks transparency. The double-digit growth in Chinas defence budget, as viewed in Washington, is way beyond its defensive needs. On the other hand, the US has the largest defence budget of any country in the world. It is pertinent to remember that wars have often been caused by miscalculation rather than deliberation. And this is even more so when an emerging power is staking its claims impinging on the existing superpowers perceived interests and/or seen to be threatening its regional allies. This is how the two World Wars started.

armed forces have sought to strengthen their ability to conduct noncombat operations, especially domestic ones, even though Chinas military modernization for traditional combat operations is far from complete. The answer lies in the relationship between economic growth and political instability. Although key to the legitimacy of leaders in developing countries, growth also creates new sources of domestic unrest and increases the vulnerability of the economy to external shocks, both of which, if unchecked, can harm future growth. Thus, developing countries such as China may use their armed forces to manage or prevent domestic unrest as well as to provide services that the state lacks, such as emergency disaster relief. For this same reason, they may also use their forces to help maintain stability in their international security environment, as such stability allows leaders to concentrate resources on domestic affairs. The logic linking economic growth and regime insecurity with noncombat operations is not unique to China and should apply toother countries undergoing similar transformations. The role of regime insecurity in Chinas military strategy should not be overstated. Chinas economic growth continues to generate additional resources for the PLAs modernization drive, which emphasizes potential contingencies around its immediate periphery, especially Taiwan and increasingly the South China Sea. China now spends more on defense than any other country apart from the United States. Nevertheless, to date, the

principal effect of economic growth has not been to identify expansive interests overseas that require new capabilities for offensive operations and long-range combat power projection for their protection. Instead, it has reinforced Chinas interest in external stability as an important factor in its development and in its domestic stability, both to avoid a costly conflict and to ensure the ability to access resources in other countries and the free flow of trade upon which Chinas economy relies. The relationship between regime insecurityand other foreign policy outcomes in China since the end of the Cold War strengthens the plausibility of the argument in this article.

Throughout the 1990s, for example, China compromised in numerous territorial disputes to enhance regime security, especially within its large ethnic minority frontier regions. 104 Similarly, one of the key goals in the2006 Foreign Affairs Work Conference was to ensure that foreign policy would serve Chinas domestic priorities li nked with growth and stability. 105 Because the CCPs legitimacy depends heavily on continued economic growth, concerns about political instabilit y among Chinas leaders are likely to persist and should continue to influence Chinas military strategy. Whether Chinas rise will continue to be

The growing role for noncombat operations in Chinas evolving military strategy provides cautious ground for limited optimism. Thesepeaceful is a question that animates scholars and policymakers alike. operations are manpower intensive and, moreover, require specialized training and organization. Although they may enhance the ability to

they draw resources away from other aspects of military modernization and may help to dampen heightened security competition, especially in areas far from China. In particular, the rise of noncombat operations suggests that the PLA is devoting fewer resources to long-range power projection than it otherwise might and that such capabilities will grow at a slower rate than they otherwise would. The emphasis on noncombat operations, especially domestic ones, also suggests that Chinas leaders will continue to maintain an inward orientation and preoccupation with domestic politics, not foreign policy. As long as Chinas leaders remain wary of potential threats to regime security, the importance of developing noncombat operations is likely to continue.conduct traditional combat operations, especially in the areas of logistics and communications,

China rise bad

China rise threatens global normsif too powerful their collapse would create unsolvable conflicts Ming 08 [MING XIA=Professor of Political Science at the Graduate Center and the College of Staten Island, "China Threat" or a "PeacefulRise of China"?, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-politics-007.html]hw "China's

rise" can be seen as a quintessentially political processthrough which the ruling Communist shore up its legitimacy after the Cultural Revolution irreversibly changed the nation and caused three crises of ideological belief, faith in the CPC, and confidence in the future. As the Party realized that the performance-based legitimacy was the only hope for prolonging its rule, economic development became the highest politics. Consequentially, the success of economic development would have toParty has sought to cause political implicationsthe external ones are carefully monitored and evaluated by China's neighbors and the only superpower of the

The reason for American concern mainly arises from its hegemonic status in the world politics and the ideological incompatibility of China with the Western value system. China's stunning economic growth has convinced the West that it is just a matter of time until China becomes a world superpower. But its ideological orientation makes China a revolutionary power that is threatening both to the United States' status and global structure. Three different logics have been constructed to substantiate the "China threat" thesis. First, ideological and cultural factors make China a threat. For neoworldthe United States. Will China become a threat to the United States, Japan, and surrounding countries? conservatives in the Bush Administration, the mere factor that China still sticks to communism makes view it adversely. Samuel Huntington has added a cultural factor: in the clash of civilizations, the "unholy alliance between Islamic and Confucian civilizations" is the most fundamental threat to the West. For people using this logic, the sensible response from the U.S. is, in the short run, a containment policy,

Second, geopolitical and geoeconomic factors. For many realists, even China has shed off its ideological straitjacket, as a great power in size (territory, population, and economy), China has to pursue its own interest and respect. Nationalism may still drive China into a course of clash with the United States, if the latter refuses to accommodate or share the leadership with China as a rising power. Some scholars fear that democracy can unleash strong nationalism and popular nationalism can make China even more aggressive toward the United States. Third, the collapse of China. Opposed to the previous two perspectives, some people are concerned that if China suffers a Soviet-style suddendeath syndrome and spins out of control, it can create an even worse scenario. The sheer size of the population makes refuge problem, the failed state and the followed crises (warlordism, civil war, crime, proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc) impossible for the world to deal with. Due to these three different considerations, the United States often oscillates from demonization to romaticization of China, from containment to engagement. The U.S.-China relationship has shifted from conflict, to confrontation, to competition and back to conflict, but so rarely features with cooperation. One American China specialist characterizes the bilateral relationship as "the sweet-and-sour Sino-Americanand confrontation is possible if needed; in the long run, the promotion of a peaceful transformation within China. relationship."

Democracy GoodDemocracy creates world stability Lagon 11[Mark P. Lagon =Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights at the council for forging relations, Promoting Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International Community, February 2011 http://www.cfr.org/democratization/promoting-democracy-whys-hows-united-statesinternational-community/p24090] Furthering democracy is often dismissed as moralism distinct from U.S. interests or mere lip service to build support for strategic policies. Yet there

are tangible stakes for the United States and indeed the world in the spread of democracynamely, greater peace, prosperity, and pluralism. Controversial means for promoting democracy and frequent mismatches betweendeeds and words have clouded appreciation of this truth. Democracies often have conflicting priorities, and democracy promotion is not a panacea.

Yet one of the few truly robust findings in international relations is that established democracies never go to war with one another. Foreign policy realists advocate working with other governments on the basis of interests, irrespective of character, and suggest that this approach best preserves stability in the world. However, durable stability flows from a domestic politics built on consensus and peaceful competition, which more often than not promotes similar international conduct for governments. Therehas long been controversy about whether democracy enhances economic development. The dramatic growth of China certainly challenges this notion. Still, history will likely show that democracy yields the most prosperity. Notwithstanding the global financial turbulence of the past three years,

democracys elements facilitate long-term economic growth. These elements include above all freedom of expression and learning to promote innovation, and rule of law to foster predictability for investors and stop corruption from stunting growth. It is for that reason that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the 2002 UN Financing for Development Conference in Monterey, Mexico, embraced good governance as the enabler of development. These elements have unleashed new emerging powers such as India and Brazil and raised the quality of life for impoverished peoples. Those who argue that economic development will eventually yield political freedoms may be reversing the order of influencesor at least discounting the reciprocal relationship between political and economic liberalization. Finally, democracy affords all groups equal access to justiceand equal opportunity to shine as assets in a countrys economy. Democracys support for pluralism prevents human assetsincluding religious and ethnic minorities, women, and migrantsfrom being squandered. Indeed, a shortage of economic opportunities and outlets for grievances has contributed significantly to the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East. Pluralism is also precisely what is needed to stop violent extremism from wreaking havoc on the world.

Democracy badMiddle east democracy promotion leads to instabilityempirics Hamid 11 [Shadi Hamid= Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center, The Struggle for Middle East Democracy, April 26, 2011,http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/04/26-middle-east-hamid] It always seemed as if Arab countries were on the brink. It turns out that they were. And those who assured us that Arab au tocracies would last for decades, if not longer, were wrong. In the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, academics, analysts and certainly Western

What has happened since January disproves longstanding assumptions about how democracies canand shouldemerge in the Arab world. Even the neoconservatives, who seemed passionately attached to the notion of democratic revolution, told us this would be a generational struggle. Arabs were asked to be patient, and to wait. In order to move toward democracy, they would first have to build a secular middle class, reach a certain level of economic growth, and, somehow, foster a democratic culture. It was never quite explained how a democratic culture could emerge under dictatorship. In the early 1990s, the United States began emphasizing civil society development in the Middle East. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration significantly increased American assistance to the region. By fiscal year 2009, the level of annual U.S. democracy aid in the Middle East was more than the total amount spent from 1991 to 2001. But while it was categorized as democracy aid, it wasnt necessarily meant to promote democracy. Democracy entails alternation of power, but most NGOs that received Western assistance avoided anything that could be construed as supporting a change in regime. The reason was simple. The United States and other Western powers supported 'reform,' but they were not interested in overturning an order which had given them pliant, if illegitimate, Arab regimes. Those regimes became part of a comfortable strategic arrangement that secured Western interests in the region, including a forward military posture, access to energy resources and security for the state of Israel. Furthermore, the West feared that the alternative was a radical Islamist takeover reminiscent of the Iranian revolution of 1979. The regimes themselves including those in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and Yemen dutifully created the appearance of reform, rather than its substance. Democratization was defensive and managed. It was not meant to lead to democracy but rather to prevent its emergence. What resulted were autocracies always engaging in piecemeal reform but doing little to change the underlying power structure. Regime opponents found themselves ensnared in what political scientist Daniel Brumberg called an 'endless transition.' This endless transition was always going to be a dangerous proposition, particularly in the long run. If a transition was promised and never came, Arabs werepolicymakers must reassess their understanding of a region entering its democratic moment. bound to grow impatient.

Democracy promotion has led to each world warempirical imperialism backlash Boyle 12 [Francis Boyle professor of international law at the University Of Illinois College Of Law, Unlimited Imperialism and the Threat ofWorld War III. U.S. Militarism at the Start of the 21st Century The Legacy of Two World Wars, December 25 2012, Global Resea rch, http://www.globalresearch.ca/unlimited-imperialism-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii-u-s-militarism-at-the-start-of-the-21st-century/5316852] Historically, this

latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii andsubjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKi nleys

military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure Americas economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the open door policy. But over the next four decades Americas aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the Pacific would ineluctably pave the way for Japans attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus Americas precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and

menaced by

the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the worlds hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagons Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what Hans Morgenthau denominated unlimited imperialism in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long asthere remains anywhere a possible object of dominationa politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conquerors lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer a ll that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of th is kind It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The

factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity.

Increased military bad

Increase in military capability increase chance of conflict Fordham 04 [Benjamin O. Fordham= Professor of Political Science Binghamton university, A Very Sharp Sword: The Influence of MilitaryCapabilities on American Decisions to Use Force, October 2004, The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 48 No. 5, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149813]hw

The evidence presented here supports the argument that the possession of greater military capability has made American decision makers more likely to use force. The possession of a very sharp sword indeed appears to have been a source of temptation. This relationship is not an accident of a single measure of military capability but rather one that holds across several indicators. There is little evidence that this relationship stems from policy makers' endogenous anticipation of their choices about the use of force when procuring military capabilities. The use of force-capabilities relationship does not run entirely in onedirection, however. Although policy makers' ability to predict the future is limited, they can and do consider past experience when constructing future capabilities. An important caveat on these results is that the military spending is not equivalent to military capabilities in contributing to more frequent uses of force. The force structure that has prevailed since the 1980s-with a relatively smaller number of high value weapons and well-paid personnel-does not appear to promote the use of force as much as the force structure that characterized the first 30 years of the cold war, in spite of higher levels of peacetime spending. That

fewer units are available limits the number of contingencies in which a use of force can be undertaken. For those who worry that greater spending will encourage unwise or unnecessary uses of force, this isgood news. On the other hand, the results are consistent with the complaints of those who favor an interventionist foreign policy that the military is currently too small to implement such a strategy effectively. Even though the

current military budget is large by postwar standards, it does not offer the capacity for intervention that the same level of spending would have had in the 1950s or 1960s. It is important to be clear about the implications of the relationship between capabilities and the use of force. First, finding that presidents are more likely to use military force when they have greater military capabilities is not the same as finding that military buildups or arms races lead to international military conflict. Such an outcome depends on the responses of other states. A state might use or threatenforce more often yet not become involved in more serious military conflicts with other states. "Uses of force" are not the same as "militarized interstate disputes," either conceptually or operationally in the data sets usually used to examine them (Fordham and Sarver 2001). This distinction stems from the familiar levels of analysis problem (Singer 1961; Waltz 1959). International conflict is a systemic outcome, whereas the foreign policy decisions of particular states are unit-level events. In previous research, "arms races" are generally defined as a simultaneous buildup of military capabilities by two or more states, something that can only be observed at the dyadic or systemic level (e.g., Diehl and Crescenzi 1998; Sample 1997, 1998; Wallace 1998). Variation in military capabilities, like the decisions it helps explain, is a unit-level phenomenon. Many uses of force, such as those undertaken against nonstate actors or with the permission of the target state, do not result in disputes with other states. Although this evidence that greater military capabilities increase the propensity to use force will not settle the debate over whether arms races lead to war, it nevertheless supports a claim implied but not tested in a substantial body of international relations research. It also illuminates an important feature of the policy-making process. The

notion that military capabilities, including those ostensibly acquired for defense, make a state more aggressive suggests that the security dilemma may be rooted in more than the misperception of other states' intentions. Greater military capability might itself lead a state to resort to force more often. Normatively, if military force should be used only for defense, or at least only as a last resort-the outlookbehind Colin Powell's response to Madeleine Albright-then that being prepared to use force lowers the threshold for doing so is troubling. Analogously, many of those who own a gun to guard their home would find it disturbing to imagine that they might be tempted to use it for other purposes, such as making a point in an argument with the neighbors. Just as Colin Powell and Caspar Weinberger sought to establish guidelines to limit the use of American military forces, the National Rifle Association promulgates strict rules about gun safety and for many of the same reasons. Additional military capabilities are usually thought to provide a margin of safety against potential threats. From this perspective, other things being equal, greater military strength is always a good thing. Other things are not always equal, however. International

relations theorists have long noted that the reactions of other states can cancel out the potential security benefits of a military buildup. These results point to another potential danger. Military capabilities are inputs into an imperfect decision-making process and may encourage risk taking. In extreme cases, as the opening quotation from Walt Rostow suggests, these capabilities may provide decision makers with just enough rope to hang themselves.

North Korea War Good

War with North Korea is better for stabilityregime change Ayson and Taylor 10[Robert Ayson= Professor of Strategic Studies and directs the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand,Brendan Taylor=professor at the Australian national university with research in Korean Peninsula security issues, US-China relations, economic sanctions, Asia-Pacific security architecture., Attacking North Korea: Why War might Be Preferred, June 24 2010, Routledge, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01495930490479051] Conclusions The logic of the status quothe continuing oscillation between alarm over North Koreas nuclear ambitions and attempts to dampen them through measures short of waris less robust than some might think. Even if the US ultimately decides against forced regime change as a means to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis, the resilience of arguments advocating this line could still adversely affect both the negotiation and subsequent implementation of any preferred diplomatic alternative. There is no doubt that any major attack on North Korea by the United States would have very serious consequences, not least for neighboring South Korea. Even if the advocates of forced regime change can get a consensus in the Oval Office, the job of persuading Seoul that theirs is the preferred option would be a truly formidable one. There is every chance of a very serious loss of life, and major infrastructural damage on both sides of the demilitarized zone. Some sort of catastrophic retaliation from the North, including the potential use of weapons of mass destruction, cannot be ruled out. The longer-term diplomatic consequences of the deliberate use of force which would face the United States could harm its regional relations

all of these become less convincing arguments for avoiding war on the peninsula at any cost, when any cost consists of the types of alternatives which are seen as even less acceptable than conflict. It is certainly possible that the latestand global image in very significant ways. But diplomatic approaches will come to be seen as failures in dealing with North Koreas nuclear weapons program, (and there are some in the

the costs of going to war may not look so bad as the dangers of living with an increasingly nuclearized North Asian rogue state that continues to defy the international community. Hence advocates of the use of force will not need to demonstrate that their option is a particularly good, let alone optimal, one. Instead in a world of bad options, the least-worst is king. And as time goes on, the use of force to precipitate regime change may increasingly look like the least-worst option. Unless the current diplomatic initiatives produce the sort of permanent and satisfactory result which is rather unheard of in relations with North Korea, they will be seen as playing for time when there is precious little time to be played with. TheBush Administration who seem to be expecting them to fail). 50 In such a case, problem, advocates of an attack may well argue, is not so much with North Koreas nuclear weapons program itself, but with th e regime

Without a change in that regime, there is no way of achieving any semblance of long-term security on and with the peninsula. And the only way for regime change in any reasonable timeframe is for it to be achieved through the use of force. At the same time, the major use of force will present opportunities to degrade North Koreas WMD capabilities in the sort of direct ways that negotiation, verification and even coercion have so far been unable to deliver. This is not to say that the deliberate use of force to change the regime is the mostwhich is behind the program. likely course of events. The chance of such an attack being ordered in the next few years is perhaps something between 10% and 30%. But a one in three chance, or even a one in ten chance, is worth taking very seriously indeed in light of what is at stake. After five decades of stalemate on the Korean peninsula and in light of the potential consequences of the deliberate use of force, it is all too easy for analysts to regard the attack option as both unlikely and irrational. But in an imperfect world of ugly choices, forced needs therefore to prepare for the possibility of a deliberate and very major attack on North Korea.

regime change may come to be seen as increasingly plausible by key decision-makers in Washington. The world

time to pre-emptively attack North Korea to prevent it from using what he believes is a nuclear weapon specifically designed to generate a powerful electromagnetic pulse that could threaten the future of U.S. society, according to a report in Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin. R. James Woolsey said that the North Koreans already have such a weapon, has conducted three nuclear tests and has orbited a satellite which could be a nuclear weapon itself. Woolsey, who was adirector of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Clinton administration, said that previous and current administrations have appeased North Korea rather than halt its nuclear weapons program. He said that even the George W. Bush administration ignored advice given in 2008 by now deputy

They proposed a surgical pre-emptive strike to destroy North Korean launch pads to halt any testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Woolsey said that failure to adhere to that advice back then has now put the U.S. at risk from a North Korean EMP attack. He said that North Korea may have developed a nuclear weapon to make what otherSecretary of Defense Ashton Carter and William Perry, secretary of defense under Clinton.

analysts call a super-EMP

weapon to produce more gamma rays while giving off a low explosive and radiation yield. North Korean nuclear devices are assessed to be in the kiloton rather than megaton range. However, if it is designed to emit more gamma rays to produce a powerful EMP effect, it would have a more debilitating impact on unprotected electronics, including the vulnerable U.S. national grid system. Gamma rays are a form of electromagnetic energy that emits a high-intensity burst caused by the rapid acceleration of charged particles. They can be so powerful and supercharged that they can knock out or completely fry any unprotected electronics, orelectrical systems, depending on its intensity. An EMP from a nuclear explosion is rated as the most powerful of three classes E1 being nuclear, E2 being lightning and E3 from a direct sun flare impact on electrical and electronic components. The effect of a North Korean EMP nuclear attack would be conducted anywhere from 150 miles to 300 miles, using a satellite orbiting the earth. This

makes Pyongyang very dangerous in conducting asymmetric warfare with the U.S. In this instance, one high-altitude explosion would effectively knock out unprotected electronics and the national grid on which the military in the U.S. depend by 99 percent. It could effectively limit any military response that the U.S. could mount, especially if North Korea were to mount launch a missile, especially over the South Pole and orbit a package that would not be identified until the North Korans took some action. Separately, former Ambassador Henry Cooper has pointed out that the U.S. lacks an Aegis anti-ballistic missile system positioned to launch against a south polar attack from North Korea. Woolsey pointed out that North Koreasspace launch vehicles resemble a secret weapon developed by the then Soviet Union called a Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems, or FOBS. The FOBS is designed to launch a surprise nuclear attack on the U.S. by using one of its intercontinental ballistic missiles disguised as a space launch vehicle.

Proliferation GoodProliferation deters conflict Drake 11 [Bennett Drake=staff writer for Bloomberg Businessweek, GIVE NUKES A CHANCE ; CAN THE SPREAD OF NUCLEARWEAPONS MAKE US SAFER?, Boston Globe, original publication date 3/20/05 Last updated 8/31/11, PAIS International]hw KENNETH N. WALTZ, adjunct professor of political science at Columbia University, doesn't like the phrase "nuclear proliferation." "The term 'proliferation' is a great misnomer," he said in a recent interview. "It refers to things that spread like wildfire. But we've had nuclear military capabilities extant in the world for 50 years and now, even counting North Korea, we only have nine nuclear countries." Strictly speaking, then, Waltz is as against the proliferation of nuclear weapons as the next sane human being. After all, he argues, "most countries don't need them." But the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by those few countries that see fit to pursue them, that he's for. As he sees it,

nuclear weapons prevent wars. "The only thing a country can do with nuclear weapons is use them for a deterrent," Waltz told me. "And that makes for internal stability, that makes for peace, and that makes for cautious behavior." Especially in a unipolar world, argues Waltz, the possession of nuclear deterrents by smaller nations can check the disruptive ambitions of a reckless superpower. As a result, in words Waltz wrote 10 years ago and has been reiterating ever since, " The gradual spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared." Waltz is not a crank. Heis not a member of an apocalyptic death cult. He is perhaps the leading living theorist of the foreign policy realists, a school that sees world politics as an unending, amoral contest between states driven by the will to power. His 1959 book, "Man, the State, and War," remains one of the most influential 20th-century works on international relations. In recent weeks, however, the spread of nuclear weapons has taken on what might appear to be a wildfire- like quality. North Korea has just declared itself a nuclear power. Iran is in negotiations with the United States and Europe over what is widely suspected to be a secret weapons program of its own. Each could kick off a regional arms race. And North Korea in the past has sold nuclear technology to Libya and Pakistan, while Iran sponsors Hezbollah and Hamas. As the Nuclear

Nonproliferation Treaty, the backbone of nonproliferation efforts for the past 35 years, comes up for review this May, there's an increasing sense that it is failing. In such a context, Waltz's argument may seem a Panglossian rationalization of the inevitable. Still, although heads of state,legislators, intelligence officials, and opinion columnists are nearly united in their deep concern over the world's nuclearization, the scholars who spend their time thinking about the issue are in fact deeply divided over the consequences of the spread of nuclear weapons, even to so-called "states of concern" like Iran and North Korea. Few among Waltz's colleagues share his unwavering confidence in the pacifying power of nuclear weapons. But plenty among them see at least some merit in the picture he paints. In part, the disagreement between Waltz and his critics is over the meaning and value of nuclear deterrence in a post-Cold War world. But it's also an argument over the motives that drive some countries to pursue nuclear weapons and others to want to keep the nuclear genie to themselves. . . . Waltz spells out his theory most thoroughly in the 1995 book "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons," co-written with the Stanford political scientist Scott D. Sagan in the form of an extended debate. Updated and republished two years ago to take into account the nuclearization of India

Put simply, a war between nuclear powers cannot be decisively won without the risk of total destruction. Since the risk of escalation in any conflict is so high, nuclear states grow cautious. "If states can score only small gains because large ones risk retaliation," Waltz writes, "they have little incentive to fight." When fighting does break out, it is likely to be a localized proxy conflict like the Korean War instead of, say, a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Nuclear weapons, he adds, even blunt the urge for territorial expansion, since they contribute far more to a country's security than any geographical buffer could. Even Graham Allison, a dean and professor at Harvard's Kennedyand Pakistan, it contains the same arguments Waltz makes today in interviews. School of Government and one of the country's most visible nonproliferation crusaders, concedes some of Waltz's argument. "There's something known in the literature as a 'crystal ball effect,'" Allison says. "With a nuclear war, probably most of the people living in the capital are going to be killed, including the leader and his family, so it brings it home. You have a positive effect, and you can certainly see that in the India-Pakistan relationship" since both countries acquired their nuclear arsenals. Yet Allison - whose latest book, the widely noted "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe," was published last August - dismisses Waltz's larger linkage between proliferation and security as "perverse, but nonetheless interesting." In particular, Allison argues, the time period just after a country goes nuclear - in the case of North Korea, the present moment - is the most dangerous. This is partly because nascent nuclear nations don't have the best command and control systems for their weapons. More troubling is that historically, in every so-called nuclear "conflict dyad" - US/ USSR, USSR/China, India/Pakistan - the first of the two to go nuclear came close to launching a preemptive attack to profit from its nuclear advantage. And the precarious hold on power of the government in a nuclear nation like Pakistan only adds to the volatile mix. Even today's long-established nuclear powers, Allison points out, may owe their continued survival as much to luck as logic. John F. Kennedy himself put the chance of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis at one in three - odds, Allison notes, that are twice as high as those in Russian Roulette. To share Waltz's faith in the pacifying effects of proliferation, says David Goldfischer of Denver University's Graduate School of International affairs, is to subscribe to a sort of "nuclear theology." (Goldfischer is himself a proponent of what he calls Mutual Defense Emphasis - a proposed treaty regime in which nuclear arsenals would be sharply reduced and mutually acceptable missile defenses installed by opposing nuclear powers.) Waltz, Goldfischer charges, "is utterly convinced that there's a rational core in every brain similar to his own, which will act somehow at the critical moment, and that no one will be able to reach a leadership position in any society who will make the potentially suicidal decision to launch when a massive retaliation is a certainty." And that doesn't begin to account for the possibility of an accidental launch or an attack by an Al Qaeda operative whose effective statelessness and hunger for martyrdom make him undeterrable. John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and another preeminent realist thinker, describes

Mearsheimer agrees with Waltz, for example, that nuclear states, no matter how "rogue," are unlikely to give their weapons to terrorists.himself as closer to Waltz than to Allison on the issue.

Whatever its sympathies, Mearsheimer argues, "Iran is highly unlikely to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, in large part because they would be putting weapons into the hands of people who they ultimately did not control, and there's a reasonably good chance that they would get Iran incinerated" if the weapon was traced back to the regime in Tehran. "Any countrythat gave [nuclear weapons] to terrorists who would use them against the US," Mearsheimer adds, "would disappear from the face of the earth." . . . The problem of "loose nukes" - in particular, Russia's inability in the years since the Cold War to keep track of all its nuclear materials - shows that even a country's strong interest in maintaining control of its nuclear weapons is no guarantee that some won't fall into the wrong hands, raising the threat of nuclear terrorism. Nevertheless, thinkers like Waltz and Mearsheimer, with their dogged focus on the calculus of national advantage and interest, raise a question that tends to get lost in much of the news coverage of proliferation: Do nuclear states like the United States oppose proliferation simply out of concern for their citizens' safety, or is there something more strategic at work? In Waltz's formulation, nations acquire nuclear weapons not to menace their neighbors but to protect themselves. And to the governments of North Korea and Iran, the primary threat is the United States. "If you were making decisions for North Korea or Iran," Waltz asks, "wouldn't you be deadly determined to get nuclear weapons, given American capability and American policy?" Seen this way,

the near- term proliferation threat is less to our homeland - neither North Korea or Iran, for example, has the missile technology to deliver a warhead to the continental US - than to our ability to project power and shape world affairs. The United States, in other words, worries as much about being deterred as being attacked. "The truth is that countries that have nuclear weapons will be off-limits," says Mearsheimer, "which is why [those countries] want them." The more nuclear nations, then, the less leverage America has. According to political scientist Robert Jervis, Waltz's colleague at Columbia, " We can't threaten to invade them. We even will have less ability to launch really heavy covert operations." Evenour allies, should they go nuclear, will start to distance themselves, Jervis predicts. "If proliferation were to spread to Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia - they will obviously still need us, but not as much, and it reduces our leverage in that way as well." By this logic, one

Washington's deep and vocal concern over proliferation only enhances the perceived value of such weapons. "But we have overwhelming conventional superiority," says Jervis, "and we'd be much better off if [nuclear weapons] wereoption for the United States would be to play down the importance of nuclear weapons. As Jervis notes, abolished. We should be saying they're not such a big deal. What has France gotten from its nuclear weapons?" Ultimately, however, no amount of military might allows a country to wish away the Bomb. Whether or not nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place, they certainly make it a more humbling one, and their spread only narrows the options of the world's sole superpower.

Proliferation creates deterrence Berkowitz 85 [Bruce D. Berkowitz= Associate Lecturer in Political Science at George Washington University, Proliferation, Deterrence,and the Likelihood of Nuclear War, The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 29, No. 1 , Mar., 1985, http://www.jstor.org/stable/174041]hw The pro-proliferation argument. Other writers have argued that although proliferation may increase the probability of nuclear war in the short run, in

the long run, proliferation will decrease and eventually eliminate the probability of nuclear war. Often these writers admit that, in the best of worlds, nuclear weapons would not exist. But they go on to argue that, because nuclear technology has been discovered and widely promulgated, nuclear disarmament is impossible. Therefore, they conclude, the best feasible goal is to proliferate nuclear weapons selectively, but steadily. One of the earliest proponents of this argument was the retired French AirForce General Pierre Gallois (1961). More recently, the argument has been formalized and elaborated by such scholars as Intriligator and Brito (1981), Waltz (1982), and Bueno de Mesquita and Riker (1982). The argument of these writers is as follows: Any nuclear power can

nuclear powers cannot attack other nuclear powers (at least not with nuclear weapons), because any such attack will be returned in kind. These theorists admit that proliferation 1. ." in its early stages may raise thelaunch a nuclear attack against any nonnuclear power, because there is no threat of retaliation. However, probability of nuclear war, because an increasing number of nuclear powers would be poised to attack a fairly large number of nonnuclear powers. But, they say, in its later stages proliferation will lower the probability of nuclear war because most states would then have the

these theorists would claim that when all states have nuclear weapons, the probability of their being used would be zero, because every state could threaten retaliation. The main danger of proliferation, according to this argument, is that obstacles to proliferation may stop the spread of nuclear weapons halfway, so that a significant number of nuclear powers would be presented with a large number of nonnuclear powers, the kind of situation most likely to breed nuclear war.' Governments haveability to retaliate and would thus be immune from nuclear attack. Indeed, tended to choose between the two classical arguments pragmatically, the rule for policy being that "where you stand depends on where you sit." Supporters of the anti-proliferation argument tend to be states that already possess nuclear weapons (or that have firm alliances with nuclear powers), states that have little hope of developing nuclear weapons, and states that either have no need for nuclear weapons or that have rejected them on moral grounds. Supporters of the pro-proliferation argument tend to be states that have some real prospects for developing nuclear weapons in the near future (e.g., Argentina and Brazil), and especially the subset of these states that face unfriendly neighbors that have either a nuclear force of their own or conventional forces so large that

Proliferation BadProliferation leads to nuclear warpast deterrence theory fails Walton 06 [Dale C. Walton= Associate Professor of International Relations at Lindenwood University, Navigating the Second Nuclear Age:Proliferation and Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century, Global Dialogue, winter 2006, PAIS International]hw The simple - indeed the perfect - answer to these uncertainties is to deny nuclear arsenals to "roguish", or potentially roguish, states. Unfortunately, however, there is every reason to believe that it will be impossible to do so consistently. Rather, we should expect the number of nuclear states to increase over time. This is not to say that there will be no non-proliferation victories. Some states seeking nuclear weapons will be dissuaded from acquiring them (as Libya apparently was), and on rare occasions a nuclear state may even denuclearise (as South Africa did). However, it would be naive to assume that this means that the spread of nuclear weapons can be reversed overall. Knowledge about any technology can be expected to spread over time and nuclear weapons are an old invention: they were first built six decades ago. Unsurprisingly, there are increasing numbers of individuals from (currently) non-nuclear countries who are knowledgeable about nuclear technology. Moreover, given ongoing advances and concerns about the price of fossil fuels, it is quite likely that nuclear power is about to enjoy a worldwide revival in popularity, a development that would in tum make it all the more difficult to control the spread of fissile material. Although well-designed counter-proliferation efforts can slow the spread of nuclear weapons, further

there will be more powers that possess the physical means to initiate nuclear war and consequently, an increasingly complicated deterrence environment worldwide. The Second Nuclear Age Some knowledgeable observers have argued compellingly that the world is entering a "Second Nuclear Age", distinct from the first in a number of respects, one of the most important of which is the increasing unreliability of deterrence.2 As nuclear weapons proliferate horizontally - that is, are acquired by non-nuclear states, as opposed to the "vertical" proliferation of increased acquisition by a nuclear-weapon state - the risk of nuclear war occurring somewhere on earth can be expected to rise, especially as the proliferating states tend not to be models of international propriety. While nuclear weapons have not been used in anger since 1945, we should not expect this record to continue for another sixty years. If it is to endure it will require both a well-designed deterrence policy and, frankly, a bit of good luck, for if a truly undeterrable leader ever comes to possess nuclear weapons and is determined to use them, deterrence would be impossible. Leaders ultimately choose to be deterred which is to say that they choose not to accept the consequences that would flow from taking a particular action; if they are willing to accept the consequences of that action, they may do as they like. This Second Nuclear Age is, in short, an era in which deterrence must be carefully tailored to the cultural, political, military, and other characteristics of the state that one is endeavouring to deter. Not all leaders are similar to those individuals who led the Soviet Union; even if deterrence truly "worked" during the Cold War, it must be assumed that deterrence theory as it developed during that period is not infallible. We should expect and prepare for deterrence failures. If responsible powers - particularly the United States and its allies - design sound deterrence policies and prepare for the possibility of deterrence failure, the likelihood of a catastrophic failure of deterrence will be minimised, though it can never be eliminated.proliferation should be regarded as a certainty. This means that This analysis is not intended to counsel despair. Indeed in many respects, humanity as a whole is far safer today than it was during the Cold War. As alluded to above, a

US-Soviet nuclear war may have been only narrowly avoided. Such a conflict could well have spelled the end of modern civilisation, at least in the northern hemisphere.Today, there appears to be little immediate danger of a civilisation-shattering nuclear conflict. It is far more likely that the next nuclear conflict will involve, at most, a few dozen warheads rather than the tens of thousands that might have been used in a US-Soviet war. That may be cold comfort when one contemplates the horrors that even a "small" nuclear war would entail, but the fact that today there is little danger that the modern world will be wiped out in an afternoon is important nonetheless.

chair of the Department of Atmospheric and

Oceanic Sciences at CU-Boulder , Alan Robock=Distinguished Professor of climatology in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University, Richard P. Turco=Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Director of the UCLA, Charles Bardeen= is a graduate student in PAOS, with interests in the observation and modeling of stratospheric aerosols, Luke Oman= Research Physical Scientist NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Earth Sciences Division Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov=Research Professor Department of Environmental Sciences Rutgers, Science,New Series, Vol. 315, No. 5816 Mar. 2, 2007, pp. 1224-1225 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20035690] hw The world may no longer face a serious threat of global nuclear warfare, but regional conflicts continue. Within this milieu, acquiring nuclear weapons has been considered a potent political, military, and social tool (1-3).

National ownership of nuclear weapons offers perceived international status and insurance against aggression at a modest financial cost. Against this back drop, we provide a quantitative assessment of the potential for casualties in a regional-scale nuclear conflict, or a terrorist attack, and the associated environmental impacts (4,5). Eight nations areknown to have nuclear weapons. In addition, North Korea may have a small, but growing, arsenal. Iran appears to be seeking nuclear weapons capability, but it probably needs several years to obtain enough fissionable material. Of

great concern, 32 other nations including Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have sufficient fissionable materials to produce weapons (1, 6). A de facto nuclear arms race has emerged in Asia between China, India, and Pakistan, which could expand to include North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (7). In the Middle East, a nuclear confrontation between Israel and Iran would be fearful. Saudi Arabia and Egypt could also seek nuclear weapons to balance Iran and Israel. Nuclear arms programs in South America, notably in Brazil and Argentina, wereended by several treaties in the 1990s (6). We can hope that these agreements will hold and will serve as a model for other regions, despite

Nuclear arsenals containing 50 or more weapons of low yield [15 kilotons (kt), equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb] are relatively easy to build (1,6). India and Pakistan, the smallest nuclear powers, probably have such arsenals, although no nuclear state has ever disclosed its inventory of warheads (7). Modern weapons are compact and light weight and are readily transported (by car, truck, missile, plane, or boat) (8). The basic concepts of weapons design can be found on of the Internet. The only serious obstacle to constructing a bomb is the limited availability of purified fissionable fuels. There are many political, economic, and social factors that could trigger a regional scale nuclear conflict, plus many scenarios for the conduct of the ensuing war. We assumed (4) that the densest population centers in each country usually in megacities are attacked. We did not evaluate specific military targets and related casualties. We considered a nuclear exchange involving 100 weapons of 15-kt yield each, that is, -0.3% of the total number of existing weapons (4). India and Pakistan, for instance, have previously tested nuclear weaponsBrazil's new, large uranium enrichment facilities. and are now thought to have between 109 and 172 weapons of unknown yield (9). Fatalities were estimated by means of a standard population database for a number of countries that might be targeted in a regional conflict (see figure, above). For instance, such

an exchange between India and Pakistan (10) could produce about 21 million fatalities about half as many as occurred globally during World War II. The direct effects of thermal radiation and nuclear blasts, as well as gamma-ray and neutron radiation within the first few minutes of the blast, would cause most casual ties. Extensive damage to infrastructure, contamination by long-lived radionuclides, and psychological trauma would likely result in the indefinite abandonment of large areas leading to severe economic and social repercussions. Fires ignited by nuclear bursts would release copious amounts of light-absorbing smoke into the upper atmosphere. If 100 small nuclear weapons were detonated within cities, they could generate 1 to 5 million tons of carbonaceous smoke particles (4), darkening the sky and affecting the atmosphere more than major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo (1991) or Tambora (1815) (5). Carbonaceous smoke particles are transported by winds throughout the atmosphere but also induce circulations in response to solar heating. Simulations (5) predict that such radiative dynamical interactions would loft and stabilize the smoke aerosol, which would allow it to persist in the middle and upper atmosphere for a decade. Smoke emissions of 100 low yield urban explosions in a regional nuclear conflict would generate substantial global scale climate anomalies, although not as large as in previous "nuclear winter" scenarios for a full-scale war (11,12). However, indirect effects on surface land temperatures, precipitation rates, and growing season lengths (see figure, page 1225) would be likely to degrade agricultural productivity to an extent that historically has led to famines in Africa, India, and Japan after the 1783-1784 Laki eruption (13) or in the northeastern United States and Europe after the Tambora eruption of 1815 (5). Climatic anomalies could persist for a decade or more because of smoke stabilization, far longer than in previous nuclear winter calculations or after volcanic eruptions. Studies of the consequences of full-scale 1224 nuclear war show that indirect effects of the war could cause more casualties than direct ones, perhaps eliminating the majority of the world's population (77, 72). Indirect effects such as damageto transportation, energy, medical, political, and social infrastructure could be limited to the combatant nations in a regional war. However, climate anomalies would threaten the world outside the combat zone. The predicted

smoke emissions and fatalities

per kiloton of explosive yield are roughly 100 times those expected from estimates for full-scale nuclear attacks with high-yield weapons (4). Unfortunately, the Treaty on Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has failed to prevent the expansion of nuclear states. A bipartisan group including two former U.S. secretaries of state, a former secretary of defense, and a former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee has recently pointed out that nuclear deterrence is no longer effective and may become dangerous (3). Terrorists, for instance, are outside the bounds of deterrence strategies. Mutually assured destruction may not function in a world with large numbers of nuclear states with widely varying political goals and philosophies. New nuclear states may not have well-developed safeguards and controls to prevent nuclear accidents or unauthorized launches. This bipartisan group detailednumerous steps to inhibit or prevent the spread of nuclear weapons (3). Its list, with which we concur, includes removing nuclear weapons from alert status to reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon; reducing the size of nuclear forces in all states; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty worldwide; securing all stocks of weapons, weapons usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world; controlling uranium enrichment along with guaranteeing that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained from controlled international reserves; safeguarding spent fuel from reactors producing electricity; halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and research facilities and rendering the materials safe; and resolving regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers. The analysis summarized here shows that the world has reached a crossroads. Having survived the threat of global nuclear war between the superpowers so far, the

world is increasingly threatened by the prospects of regional nuclear war. The consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts are unexpectedly large, with the potential to become global catastrophes. The combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability, and urban demographics may constitute one of the greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of humans.

Iran proliferation kills middle east heginstability Kroenig 09

[Matthew Kroenig= an assistant professor of Government at Georgetown University, Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: The Differential Effects of Nuclear Proliferation november 2009, Harvard Kennedy school, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Beyond-Optimism-andPessimism.pdf] The argument of this article helps us to better understand the consequences of other important real-world nuclear proliferation challenges. At the time of writing in 2009, Iran was on the verge of mastering the uranium-enrichment capabilities that it could use to develop nuclear weapons. Proliferation optimists contend that the United States should learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. 144 They claim that an Iranian bomb does not directly threaten the United States because Tehran can be deterred. This analysis misses the point. U.S. strategists are quite confident that nuclear deterrence will work in Iran; they are concerned that it is the United States that might be deterred. Presently, the

Against a nuclear-armed Tehran, however, Washingtons military freedom of action is greatly constrained, undermining the U.S.s strategic position in the region. On the other side of the debate, proliferation pessimists argue that a nuclear Iran threatens the United States primarily because an unstable Iranian regime and loose government control over the Iranian security services could lead to some kind of nuclear accident. A nuclear accident may one concern of U.S. strategists, but if so, it is at the bottom of the list. As we saw above, it is likely that the United States fears nuclear proliferation in Iran for the same reasons that it has been threatened by nuclear proliferation to other states in the past. A nuclear Iran could: deter the United States from using military force in the Middle East, reduce the effectiveness of American coercive diplomacy against Iran , trigger instability in the region that could require U.S. intervention, undermine U.S. alliance relationships in the region and beyond, and lead to further nuclear proliferation in the region compounding these strategic costs.United States has the option to use military power to its advantage in its relationship with Iran.

of the global economy's greatest areas of vulnerability -- its reliance on shipping lanes to China -- is an easy target for terrorist attack, according to leading intelligence experts. Shipping lanes passing through the Red Sea or Malacca Straits are the most likely targets of an attack from terrorists who have picked up tips from pirates, says Aegis Defence Services, the commercial intelligence and risk advisory firm. If one or two of the four major choke points between East and West were blocked, either through positioning or exploding the tanker, it would turn a three-week freight journey into a seven- week one. Even a perceived risk of terrorist attack could be enough to drive insurers away from the market and bring shipping to a standstill, threatening the whole global economy. The risk is highlighted in the latestquarterly report from Aegis on the global threat from terrorism, which outlines developments likely to become apparent this year. One of the

the $58 billion (UKpound 32 billion, E47 billion) bill from the 2002 US port strike as proof of the havoc that can be wreaked by disruption to shipping. The strike lasted just 12 days. Armstrong told The Business: "Terrorists are the new highwaymen threatening the global economy. We are living in a global village, but the roads are very, very dangerous." The main terrorist threat to developed countries this year continues to be that from Islamist extremism, the report says. The terrorists are watching and learning from pirates, Armstrong believes. Piracy worldwide is up 30 percent year on year. The waters around Indonesia are a hotbed for this sort of crime. "Sea mugging could soon become hijacking," said Armstrong. Last year, terrorists are believed to have staged a practice run at kidnapping a tanker near Indonesia. After boarding the ship, they did not demand money asreport's authors, Dominic Armstrong, Aegis' head of research and intelligence, cites pirates would, but went to the bridge to steer the tanker and replace its communications system with one of their own. After checking the system worked, they disembarked the ship. Armstrong said: " The

stock market has rewarded cheap manufacturing to China. But what if the boat doesn't come? Businesses are ill-prepared for such an eventuality and should make back up plans, such as having a shadow facility somewhere nearer to home."Revolutionaries are the most active terrorists globally, according to the Aegis report, accounting for 31 percent of atrocities. Islamists are responsible for 17 percent, and separatists 8 percent. The Palestinian conflict has generated 6 percent of the total attacks. Aegis was launched by Colonel Tim Spicer in 2002.

Nuclear terrorism crushes the economy Ferguson and Lubenau 11 [Charles D. Ferguson= is an adjunct professor in the security studies program at GeorgetownUniversity, Joel O. Lubenau,Understanding and Stopping Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism orginaly published winter 2006 last updated 6/2/2011, Centre for world dialogue, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/211504385?accountid=14667 ] There has been controversy about what constitutes nuclear terrorism. While some analysts strictly define it as use of a nuclear explosive, others include radiological attacks designed to cause harm through release of radiation without producing a nuclear detonation.

Terrorist use of a nuclear explosive could take two forms. First, the terrorist group could seize and detonate an intact nuclear weapon originating from a military arsenal. Second the group could acquire enough weapons-usable fissile material - highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium - to make and explode a crude nuclear bomb, termed an "improvised nuclear device". Radiological attacks could involve the sabotage of, or an attack on, nuclear facilities such asnuclear power plants and spent-nuclear-fuel storage pools, or the use of radiation dispersal devices, one type of which is popularly known as a "dirty bomb". Many people would probably lump all of these attacks together as nuclear terrorism because each type involves a "nuclear asset". However, the likelihood of these acts varies considerably. Experts have reached consensus that terrorist detonation of nuclear explosives is far less likely to occur than terrorist use of a dirty bomb or terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. In particular, making even a crude nuclear explosive is much harder to do than building a dirty bomb. Fissile materials to power nuclear weapons are far less available than potent radioactive sources to fuel dirty bombs. Intact nuclear weapons are less prevalent and usually much more secure than either weapons-usable fissile material or radioactive sources. Building even a crude nuclear explosive demands technical skills that are more advanced than those necessary for making

a dirty bomb, which could be as simple as a radioactive source coupled to a stick of dynamite. As regards attacks on nuclear facilities, it would be difficultto cause a release of radiation by such means because of the strong security typically surrounding commercial nuclear sites and because of the safety systems that can mitigate the effects of an attack. Nonetheless, compared to the multiple challenges in acquiring or making a nuclear weapon, a terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant appears less daunting. Nuclear and radiological terrorism also differ markedly in their consequences. Although dirty bombs could cause dozens of fatalities from the conventional blast, they would typically kill

few, if any, people in the near term from exposure to ionising radiation. Over a period of several years, however, many people might develop

dirty bombs, or radiation dispersal devices, as weapons main effects would probably be psychological and social disruption caused by fear of radiation and by radioactive contamination that could shut down large areas of a city. Similarly, a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant or radioactive-waste storage site would release radiation, spark fear, and cause widespread disruption. While both types of radiological terrorism - the detonation of a dirty bomb, or assaults on nuclear facilities - could harm the nation under attack and might hurt the global economy, they would pale in significance compared to a nuclear explosion in a city. Such a transformative event would immediately kill upwards of tens of thousands of people and completely devastate a vast urban area. The ripple effects would spread throughout the globe. Panic in the financial sector could result in the loss of trillions of dollars. Fear of additional nuclear explosions in other cities around the world could cause loss of confidence in government.cancer as a result of this exposure. Experts have labelled of mass disruption because the

Agricultural terrorism increases food prices and undercuts the US economy loss of production Wheelis, Casagrande, and Madden 02[MARK WHEELIS= works in the Microbiology department at the University of California Davis, ROCCO CASAGRANDE= research interests in the development and testing of devices to detect and analyze biological weapons and in biological defense policy, LAURENCE V. MADDEN= is with the Department of Plant Pathology at the Ohio State University, Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism., July 2002, American Institute of Biological Sciences, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568%282002%29052%5B0569%3ABAOALT%5D2.0.CO%3B2, Vol. 52, No. 7 pp. 569-576]hw

Diseases have a significant negative impact on agricultural productivity The burden on agriculture of endemicand naturally imported epidemic disease is high, confirming the capacity of animal and plant diseases to cause economic harm. The United States is free of many globally significant livestock diseases because of effective surveillance of herds and imports and aggressive eradication campaigns. Even

from animal disease account for 17% of the production costs of animal products in the developed world and nearly twice that amount in the developing world (ARS 2002). The total cost of crop diseases to the US economy has been estimated to be in excess of$30 billion per year (Pimentelet al. 2000).The costs include reduction in the quantity (e.g.,so, approximately $17.5 billion dollars are lost each year because of diseased livestock and poultry. In general, losses reduced bushels per acre) and quality (e.g., blemished fruit, toxins in grain) of yield; short-term costs of control (e.g., cost of purchasing and applying pesticides) and long-term costs (e.g., development of resistant varieties of crops through breeding and development of new pesticides);extra costs of harvesting and grading diseased agricultural products (e.g., separating diseased from disease-free fruit);costs of replanting blighted fields; costs of growing less desirable crops that are not susceptible to the dominant plant pathogens in an area; higher

food prices; unavailable foods; trade disruptions; and public and animal health costs caused by the production of toxins by some plant pathogens (Zadoks and Schein 1979, James et al. 1991,Madden and Nutter 1995). In contrast to the sweeping campaigns undertaken to eliminate the most virulent diseases of livestock, efforts generally have not been made to eradicate diseases of crops (Strange 1993). One goal of plant disease control has been to maintain most indigenous diseases at a lowor very low incidence level through a range of management techniques (Fry 1982).The exception is when a disease has a very narrow geographic distribution (as would a newly introduced exotic disease),spores are not dispersed great distances, and disease incidence is low. In such a situation, eradication may be feasible. Despite

the high toll endemic disease and periodic incursions of epidemic disease exact on agriculture, many pathogens have not appeared in the United States at all, while others have made only very rare appearances, and still others were eradicated decades ago (especially with animals);many of these are considered to be serious threats to agriculture (Brown and Slenning 1996,Madden 2001).Thus, the exotic, highly contagious pathogens causing these diseases could be chosen as bioweapons for the large economic consequences that could result from their introduction. Pathogens that cause diseases such as FMD, rinderpest, African swine fever (ASF), soybean rust, Philippine downy mildew of maize, potato wart, and citrus greening could, if introduced into the continental United States, have serious consequences for the US economy.

[MARK WHEELIS= works in the Microbiology department at the University of California Davis, ROCCO CASAGRANDE= research interests in the development and testing of devices to detect and analyze biological weapons and in biological defense policy, LAURENCE V. MADDEN= is with the

Agricultural bioterrorist attack can have severe economic consequences Even a massive outbreak of plant or animal disease in the United States would not cause famine; the agricultural sector is too diverse, too productive, and too closely regulated for that to be a realistic possibility. However, a successful attack could have severe economic consequences. The most substantial impact would be the loss of international markets for animal or plant materials. Member nations of the World Trade Organization are entitled to ban imports of plant or animal materials that may introduce exotic diseases into their territories (Wheelis 1999b, FAS 2001). Thus, importing countries that are themselves free of a particular highly contagious animal or plant disease will routinely impose sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions on trade with countries in which that disease breaks out. This can result in billions of dollars of lost trade. For instance, as soon as the first case of FMD was reported in the United Kingdom last year, the European Union (and other countries) immediately blocked imports of British beef, sheep, and swine and products derived from them. The total sum of lost revenues from contracted international markets has not yet been determined, but it will certainly be billions of dollars. For the United States, with $41 billion of beef, $19 billion of diary, and $14 billion in pork sales annually (USDA 1997), the trade consequences of an outbreak of FMD could be much larger. A recent study of the impact that an outbreak of FMD would have on California agriculture concluded that losses, usingconservative estimates, would be $6 billion to $13 billion even if the outbreak were contained within California and eradicated within 5 to 12 weeks (Ekboir 1999). Karnal bunt of wheat, caused by the fungus Tilletiaindica, provides another example of severe economic

About 80 countries ban wheat imports from regions with karnal bunt infections, even though the disease does not have a large direct effect on crop yield (Bandyopadhyay and Frederiksen 1999). When the disease was discovered in Arizona and surrounding areas in 1996 (probably from an accidental introduction from Mexico), there was an immediate threat to the overall $6 billion per year US wheat crop, since about 50% of produced wheat is exported. Because of this threat,consequences caused by agricultural disease. the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) immediately mobilized efforts to contain the outbreak within the original small area and to eradicate the disease. From 1996 to 1998, APHIS spent over $60 million on the effort, and growers in this small affected area lost well over $100 million from lost sales and increases in production costs (Bandyopadhyay and Frederiksen 1999; John Neesen [APHIS], personal communication, 2 April 2002). In this case, the localized nature of the outbreak allowed the United States to convince its trading partners that none of the contaminated wheat was entering the market, and wheat exports continued from the rest of the country. Unfortunately, karnal bunt was recently discovered again, this time in Texas (AgNet 2001), and a new

domestic demand can also be significantly affected. Even minor outbreaks of disease that can potentially infect people can have severe economic consequences. Since September 11, a mere three cases of mad cow disease have been found in Japan; yet as a consequence, Japanese beef sales dropped approximately 50% during this period (Watts 2001). In addition to the costs that result from reduced international and domestic demand, the costs of containment can be quite substantial, as the examples discussed above make clear. Thus, even for commodities that are not exported in large amounts, an outbreak of disease that provokes vigorous eradication efforts may have a substantial economic effect. Taiwan, for instance, spent about $4 billion in an unsuccessful effort to eradicate FMD after it was introducedround of containment and eradication efforts has been initiated. In some cases, to the country in 1997 (Wilson et al. 2000).

Agricultural terrorism would be easy to start and hard to stop Wheelis, Casagrande, and Madden 02[MARK WHEELIS= works in the Microbiology department at the University of California Davis, ROCCO CASAGRANDE= research interests in the development and testing of devices to detect and analyze biological weapons and in biological defense policy, LAURENCE V. MADDEN= is with the Department of Plant Pathology at the Ohio State University, Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism., July 2002, American Institute of Biological Sciences, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568%282002%29052%5B0569%3ABAOALT%5D2.0.CO%3B2, Vol. 52, No. 7 pp. 569-576]hw Unfortunately, the same difficulties do not exist for many of the diseases that would make effective agricultural bioterrorist weapons.

These diseases of animals and crops are highly contagious and spread effectively from a point source, as the recent FMD outbreak in the United Kingdom dramatically confirms. Moreover, humans can safely handle thecausative organisms, with no risk of becoming infected. None of the plant pathogens of concern, nor most of the animal pathogens, cause disease in humans. Thus, there is no need for vaccination, prophylactic antibiotic use, or special precautions to prevent infection of the perpetrators. Although a small outbreak may not produce a large psychological impact (relative to a single person dying of anthrax or smallpox), several of these pathogens owe much of their

economic impact to trade sanctions that are

imposed in response to a few cases; thus, even small outbreaks can have very large economic effects. A few cases of FMD scattered around the country could interrupt much of US animal product exports for several months, even if the outbreaks were promptly contained (importing countries would want to wait several weeks or months to verify that the outbreak was truly contained before resumingimports). Obviously it is technically easier to cause a few scattered cases of disease than to prepare a kilogram-sized stockpile of weaponized agent for aerosol distribution. Material therefore does

to initiate an outbreak of plant or animal disease not have to be prepared in large quantitya few milligrams could be sufficient to initiate multiple outbreaks in widely separated locationsif the goal is to disrupt international trade, or ifthe terrorists are sufficiently patient to allow a crop disease to develop over several months by transmission from individual to individual. And the

agent does not necessarily have to be grown in the laboratory or otherwise manipulateda small amount of natural material taken from a diseased animal or plant can serve without any additional manipulation. For instance, a few hundred microliters of scrapings from theblistered mucosa of an FMD-infected animal, or blood from an animal hemorrhaging from ASF, or a handful of wheat tillers heavily infected by the stem rust pathogen can provide more than enough agent to initiate an epidemic.

Such materials are readily available in many places in the world where the diseases of concern are endemic, and they can be obtained and transported without any particular expertise other than what is necessary to recognize the disease symptoms with confidence. Since only small amounts are needed, they can be easily smuggled into the country with essentially no chance of detection. Dissemination of many introduced pathogens likewise requires relatively little expertise. Animal virus preparations could be diluted and disseminated with a simple atomizer in close proximity to target animals, or the preparation smeared directly on the nostrils or mouths of a small number of animals. This could be done from rural roads with essentially no chance of detection. Dissemination of animal diseases could also be done surreptitiously at an animal auction or near barns where animals are densely penned (as in chicken houses or piggeries). For plant diseases, simply exposing a mass of sporulatingfungi to the air immediately upwind of a target field could be effective, if environmental conditions were favorable for infection. The biggest challenge of introducing a plant pathogen is probably timing the release with the appropriate weather conditions (Campbell and Madden 1990). If pathogens are released immediately before the start of a dry period, few, if any, infections are likely to result. However, if released at

The technical ease of introducing many agricultural pathogens makes it more likely that terrorists or criminals would release pathogens in several locations in an attempt to initiate multiple, simultaneous outbreaks. This would ensure that trade sanctions would be imposed, because it would undermine any argument that the outbreaks are localized and do not jeopardize importing countries. It would also be more likely to overwhelm the response capacity and lead to the uncontrollable spread of disease. This is the principal way in which a bioterrorist attack would differ from a natural disease introduction, and it raises the question whether a system designed to respond to natural introductions canthe start of a rainy period, these pathogens could cause a major epidemic. deal effectively with sudden, multifocal outbreaks.

Terrorist are likely to use a dirty bombkills the economy and agriculture Worcester 08[Maxim Worcester is a Berlin based British security consultant, former Managing Director Control Risks Deutschland GmbH, International Terrorism and the Threat of a Dirty Bomb, Jan 25 2008, ISPSW, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?id=46567] Given the difficulties faced in acquiring a nuclear device by an organisation such as al-Qaida or the technical problems associated in building and delivering either a chemical or bacteriological weapon it

would seem likely that terrorist would revert to the use of a dirty bomb in order to achieve escalation. Such a bomb could be a crude and small device using conventional explosives and radioactive material such as Caesium137, Strontium-90, Cobalt60, or even Plutonium. Whilst difficult to purchase on the open market such isotopes can be found in any major hospital or laboratory. Currie-level Isotopes are used for Radiotherapy and blood transfusion centres carry significant stocks of Caesium-137 for irradiating transferred blood to prevent transfusion related diseases. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission furthermore reports that at least 1.6 million devices containing radioisotopes which could be used in a dirty bomb have been licensed in the US. Should such a device go off in a major down town area and expose 100.000 people it would have a major impact. The area would have to be rapidly evacuated and closed off for decontamination which could take months, depending upon the degree of contamination. Fatalities would not compare with the attacks in September 2001; however the

economic damage and disruption caused would be out of all proportion. The psychological impact of 3 such an outrage, mass hysteria and uncertainty amongst the population of the longer term effects of exposure to radiation, could outweigh the impact of the September 2001 attacks. Offices in affected areas would have to be evacuated and employees would refuse to return to workbecause of fears of radioactive contamination meaning some key offices could not remain open. Whilst the IRA attacks on the City of London in 1992 (Baltic Exchange), 1993 (Bishopsgate) and 1996 (Canary Wharf) were conventional attacks resulting in relatively few casualties, the economic cost of these attacks came to an estimated 2000 million Pounds Sterling. The financial and psychological impact of

An accident in Goainia, Brazil in 1987 illustrates the impact of a radiological attack. In this case workers dismantling a laboratory unknowingly exposed 100 g. of Caesium-137. As a result, 112.000 persons had to be examined for signs of exposure, a process which took months to conduct. Exposure to radiation resulted in 4 deaths and 260 persons showed signs of exposure, of which 49 required hospital treatment. Furthermore, even non affected persons showed signs of stress induced symptoms of radiation poisoning including vomiting and blistering. Goainia is an agricultural centre and all deliveries of produce to other regions were suspended until the clean up was concluded resulting in economic hardship and closure of factories. The international sign for radioactive hazard isa dirty bomb attack on any one of the three locations would by far exceed the damage done by the IRA. today integrated in the flag of the province, a clear indication of the impact this accident had on the region.

Terrorism goodTerror not an existential risk but that rhetoric has sustained US heg Marcopoulos 09 [Alexander J. Marcopoulos, J.D. from Tulane, BA in Economics and Philosophy Terrorizing Rhetoric: TheAdvancement of U.S. Hegemony Through the Lack of a Definition of Terror, January 13 2009, SSRN, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1327155]hw In summary, an examination of U.S.

rhetoric during the Cold War provides useful insight into the ways in which U.S. rhetoric regarding terrorism has been exploited as a vehicle for maintaining U.S. hegemony. Because of its ability to shape conceptions of truth and cater to human emotions such as fear, language can be an effective tool in a nations quest to project power. Specifically, because the U.S. has (perhaps strategically) failed to provide a static definition for theword terror, it has been able to invoke that word to construct threats, to inspire fear, and to plot a particular strategic foreign policy course. It is thus submitted that not

since the red scare rhetoric of the Cold War has a single word been able to affect such tremendous policy change in the world. Having established that the lack of a definition of the word terror has allowed the U.S. to exploit it as a vehicle for hegemonic power projection, this Paper will conclude by inquiring whether in doing so, the U.S. has engaged in a sustainable enterprise. In terms of the U.S. being able to invoke the word terror to justify throwing its weight around in the international community, it appears as though the Bush Administrations War on Terror strategy successfully preserved U.S. hegemony in some ways. However, thisPaper will attempt to prove that the current approach is growing increasingly untenable and will force the incoming Obama Administration to plot a new foreign policy course with regard to terrorism. As previously discussed, the U.S. has done many things to exploit the lack of a static definition of terror. It is here that the dots should be connected to paint a picture of the mechanics of the U.S.s hegemonic strategy regarding the use of the word terror. The U.S. has taken a word traditionally used t o describe a certain type of criminal act.166 It has

the U.S. has applied its recently adopted policy of preemption and preeminence, sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine, so that it may invoke the word terror to justify preemptive exertions of its power in the world.168 But in invoking the word terror, the U.S. has proceeded carefully in only justifying actions that are in its strategic best interest.169 Since it is in the best interest of the U.S. to (1) not be bound to act when it does not want to, and (2) to choose to act when strategically beneficial, the U.S. has benefited from not having a static definition of terror because the status quo usage of the word provides it with the flexibility to act only when it chooses to.170 While the foregoing process demonstrates how the U.S. has been able to apply the word terror to instances of its choosing, it does not explain how the U.S. has been able to act hegemonically in persuading the rest of the world to follow suit.171 That capability stems from the word terror itself and the way it has been molded into a tool of power projection.172 The rhetoric of the U.S. regarding terror has created an existential threat out of what is actually just a set of violent tactics.173 The mere invocation of that word has been able to set themorphed the meaning of that word so as to cause it to connote an act of war.167 As such, international community in motion at the drop of a hat (or bomb), as evidenced by the quickness with which the U.S. has been able to use it

The U.S. has made it clear that the rest of the world faces a forced choice of either supporting the U.S. or being deemed a terrorist state.175 Fearful of the consequences of what the latter may entail, the U.S. has been able to coerce countries to allow for a U.S. military, economic, and intelligence presence within their borders.176 Thus has evolved a predominant norm in U.S. foreign policy, centered on the quintessentially hegemonic behavior that stems from one undefined term. All seems well for the U.S. in this scenario as it may ostensibly do as it pleases as long as the issue is relevant to its wide-sweepingin garnering the support of otherwise unfriendly countries.174 War on Terror. However, as time goes by and the shock of the September 11 attacks has subsided, the international community has become less and less sympathetic to the demands of the U.S. regarding terrorism.177 That fact is underscored by the decline of support for the Bush Administrations policies domestically and the failur e of the Republican Party to retain its control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Perhaps the U.S. is unable to sustain this form of hegemony after all. There was a time immediately following the September 11 terror attacks when the U.S. was able to capitalize on the sympathy of the rest of the world regarding the shocking blow that it had just been dealt.178 When

the attacks were still fresh in the minds of people all over the world, it seemed as though the U.S. could garner support for almost any retaliatory measure it conjured up within the bounds of reason (and sometimes

without).179 It is during this time that the U.S. was most able to embark on its practice of unilateralism in its response to terrorism.180 The rest of the world sat back and watched as the U.S. forewent the New World Order multilateral approach to security employed byPresident Bush, Sr., and instead, invoked the right to self-defense under the UN Charter in invading Afghanistan.181 A few years later, the rest of the world did not give the U.S. as much room to exert itself, as many influential countries expressed resentment at the unilateral policies of the U.S. regarding its war in Iraq.182 As an attempt to quell hostilities and justify its presence there, the U.S. even invoked the word terror regarding Iraq, trying to establish some tie between Saddam Husseins regime and Al Qaeda.183 Partly because th e deep sympathy the rest of the world expressed over September 11 had waned somewhat, the invocatio n of the word terror in this context was not the trump card it used to be.184 It is clear now that the rest of the world will expect an altogether different strategy from Presdient-elect Obama, because terror, unlike the Visa card, is no longer accepte d everywhere.

Terrorism solves the economy-liquidity Mieszkowski 01 [Katharine Mieszkowski, news correspondent, Will the war on terrorism be a recession buster?, September 212001, salon , http://www.salon.com/2001/09/21/fiscal_stimulus_3/]hw Will last weeks terrorist attacks and the coming war effort finally plunge the U.S. economy into the recession its been tee tering on the brink of for months? Or will the opposite happen? Might wartime spending act as a fiscal stimulus package that would jump-start the countrys flagging finances? Congress

has already approved $40 billion in spending to rebuild and fight terrorism after last weeks attacks, and theres a good chance that many more billions will be ladled for tasks such as rescuing the beleaguered airline industry and upgrading national security. Economists are hoping that the burst of wartime spending will counteract not only the financial fallout from last weeks attacks, but also the long decline of the economy over the last year. The bottom line is that, in a sufficiently aggressive military posture, you could actually have a positive economic effect from this, says Robert Litan, director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, in a briefing. Just look, for example, at the postwar prosperity resulting from the United States involvement in World War II. Such government spending acts as a stimulus, because those funds would have otherwise been languishing in the so-called Social Security lock box. Otherwise that money would have been sittingin T-bills [Treasury bonds] with an IOU to the Social Security trust fund, said Ross DeVol, an economist at the Milken Institute. The

terrorist attacks signaled an immediate change in the governments economic priorities. All the talk about balancing the budget and protecting social security thats gone now, said Steve Golub, an economics professor at Swarthmore College, adding, Im fairly confident that theyll do what it takes to prevent a sustained recession.

Terrorism increase infrastructure and government efficiency9/11 proves Webster 11 [Graham Webster, news correspondent and former Intern of the National Bureau of Asian Research., The Next Ten Years ofPost-9/11 Security Efforts, National bureau of Asian research, September 1, 2011, http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=171#.UeYs_21t5vg ]hw

Ten years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. security infrastructure has changed dramatically. Sen. Slade Gorton, the first permanent appointment to the 9/11 Commission, tells NBR that much has improved. Intelligence-sharing and cooperation within the government have drastically increased. Meanwhile, the United States has fallen short of the commissions recommendations for allocating intelligence funding andreforming congressional oversight. Ahead of the 9/11 Conference that NBRs Slade Gorton International Policy Center will host on September 9, Sen. Gorton reviewed the last decade of security policy and previewed the challenges to come. What has the United States done well after 9/11 to improve its security efforts? We

are sharing intelligence far more effectively. Before 9/11 even the two divisions of the FBI couldnt effectively share intelligence, much less could the CIA share with the FBI. Those walls, or stovepipes, were broken downsome of them before the 9/11 Commission even came into existence. In addition, the intelligence community was reformed by Congress as a result of 9/11 Commission recommendations and the creation of the National Counterterrorism Center together with the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) to preside over all intelligence activities in the federal government and serve as the chief adviser to the president. Thats worked fairly well. It hasnt worked as well as we think it could have, however, because our recommendation was that the DNIhave budgetary authority over the other intelligence agencies, and Congress did not give the DNI that authority. Nonetheless, our gathering,

were spending $80 billion a year now, double the amount that we were spending before 9/11. I think weveour sharing, and our use of counterterrorism intelligence have been greatly improved. They ought to be;

tripled the amount that were spending on the CIA, though much of that is for technical equipment and infrastructure. I think the number of people working for the CIA has only increased by about a third.

the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush signed two Executive Orders relevant to critical infrastructure protection. These have since been amended to reflectchanges brought about by the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (see below). The following is a brief discussion of

E.O. 13228, signed October 8, 2001, established the Office of Homeland Security , headed by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security . 19 Its mission is to develop andthe original E.O.s and how they have changed. coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats and att acks.

Among its functions was the coordination of efforts to protect the United States and its critical infrastructure from the consequences of terrorist attacks. This included strengthening measures for protecting energy production, transmission, and distribution; telecommunications; public and privately owned information systems; transportation systems; and, the provision of food and water for human use. Another function of the Office was to coordinate efforts to ensure rapid restoration of these critical infrastructures after a disruption by a terrorist threat or attack. Many of the functions of theOffice of Homeland Security were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security when the latter was established (see below). 20 The EO also established the Homeland Security Council . The Council is made up of the President, Vice-President, Secretaries of Treasury, Defense, Health and Human Services, and Transportation, the Attorney General, the Directors of FEMA, FBI, and CIA and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. The EO was later amended to add the Secretary of Homeland Security. Other White House and departmental officials can be invited to attend Council meetings. 21 The Council advises and assists the President with respect to all aspects of homeland security. The agenda for those meetings shall be set by the Assistant to President for Homeland Security, at the direction of the President. The Assistant is also the official recorder of Council actions and Presidential decisions. 22 In January and February 2003, this E.O. was amended (by Executive Orders 13284 and 13286, respectively). The Office of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President, and the Homeland Security Council were all retained. However, the Secretary of Homeland Security was added to the Council. The duties of the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security remained the same, recognizing the statutory duties assigned to

The second Executive Order (E.O. 13231) signed October 16, 2001, stated that it is U.S. policy to protect against the disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructure ... and to ensure that any disruptions that occur are infrequent, of minimal duration, and manageable, and cause the least damage possible. 23 This Order also established the Presidents Critical Infrastructure Protection Board . The Board, consisting of federal officials, was authorized to recommend policies and coordinate programs for protecting information systems for critical infrastructure. The Board also was directed to propose a National Plan on issues within its purview on a periodic basis, and, in coordination with the Office of Homeland Security, review and make recommendations on that part of agency budgets that fall within the purview of thethe Secretary of Homeland Security as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (see below). Board. The Board was chaired by a Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security . 24 The Special Advisor reported to both the Assistant to the President for National Security and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. Besides presiding over Board meetings, the Special Advisor, in consultation with the Board, was to propose policies and programs to appropriate officials to ensure protection of the nations information infrastructure and to coordinate with the Director of O MB on issues relating to budgets and the

The Order also established the National Infrastructure Advisory Council . The Council is to provide advice to the President on the security of information systems for critical infrastructure. The Councils functions include enhancing publicprivate partnerships, monitoring the development of ISACs, and encouraging the private sector to perform periodic vulnerability assessments of critical information and telecommunication systems. Subsequent amendments to this E.O. (by E.O. 13286) abolished the Presidents Board and thesecurity of computer networks. position of Special Advisor. The Advisory Council was retained, but now reports to the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security. In July 2002, the Office of Homeland

Security released a National Strategy for Homeland Security . The Strategy covered all government efforts to protect the nation against terrorist attacks of all kinds. It identified protecting the nations critical infrastructures and key assets (a new term, different as implied above by the FBIs key asset program) as one of six critical mission areas. The Strategy expanded upon the list of sectors considered to possess critical infrastructure to include public health, the chemical

industry and hazardous materials, postal and shipping, the defense industrial base, and agriculture and food. The Strategy also added continuity of government and continuity of operations to the list, although it is difficult to see how the latter would be a considered sector. It also combined emergency fire service, emergency law enforcement, and emergency medicine as emergency services. And, it dropped those functions that primarily belonged to the federal governments (e.g., defense,intelligence, law enforcement). It also reassigned some of the sectors to different agencies, including making the then proposed Department

It also introduced a new class of assets, called key assets, which was defined as potential targets whoseof Homeland Security lead agency for a number of sectorspostal and shipping services, and the defense industrial base. destruction may not endanger vital systems, but could create a local disaster or profoundly affect national morale. Such assets were defined later to

include national monuments and other historic attractions, dams, nuclear facilities, and large commercial centers, including office buildings and sport stadiums, where large numbers of people congregate to conduct business, personal transactions, or enjoy recreational activities. 25

The 2001 terrorist attacks underscored the importance of the minor investments made in public health preparedness in the last decades of the 20th century. These investments were made largely in response to a growing awareness of the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases and to reports of an extensive Soviet bioweapons programme. 3,4 New funding resources for infectious diseases led to improvements in epidemiological capacity at the state and local levels, a core national stockpile of medical assets, and a novel laboratory diagnostic network for bioterrorism agents. Since 9/11, the US public health system has received unprecedented national investments inrecognition of its importance to the national security. These investments have resulted in increased capacity that is most evident in well

The terrorist attacks also led to a cultural shift in the way state and large city health departments work and interact with other agencies and sectors. Health departments are now becoming increasingly accepted as equal partners by traditional first responders, such as law enforcement agencies, -repopulated states and large urban areas where new resources were mostly directed. departments, and emergency medical services. These interactions are supported by the incorporation of public health components into the

Public health bodies at the local, state, and federal levels now routinely use this system to ensure that everyone has the same focus, whether responding to daily incidents or major disasters. Further substantial investments were made in state and local preparedness and response infrastructure, planning, and capability development for routine outbreaks and to help ensure health security in the event of large disasters or epidemics. The US Department of Health and Human Services established several additional resources, including deployable teams from the US Public Health Service that can rapidly assist in a response to a public health emergency. The National Disaster Medical System expanded its mission to include medical treatment for victims of terrorist attacks. Sustained efforts to leverage technology in advanced research and development of countermeasures to increase protection from radiological or nuclear, chemical, and biological agents have improved diagnostic tests and led to new vaccines and antitoxins for smallpox and botulism, and drugs for anthrax, smallpox, and influenza. CDCs Strategic National Stockpile increased its core formulary to support the prophylaxis of more than 50 million people to prevent anthrax, plague, or tularaemia, and acquired enough smallpox vaccine to immunise every person in the USA. The Stockpile also started the forward placement of lifesaving antidotes for terrorist attacks with chemical or nerve agents (the CHEMPACKNational Response Framework and the National Incident Management System. programme 5 ). The mission of the Laboratory Response Network has expanded from biological and chemical agents to include emerging

and from US borders to international partnerships with Mexico, Canada, the UK, and others. After 9/11, the US Congress passed the USA PATRIOTinfectious diseases and other public health threats and emergencies, Act of 2001 6 and the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, 7 which substantially strengthened the ability of the USA to oversee select agents and toxins that could pose public health threats. A recent Presidential Executive Order 8 stipulated that the list of select agents will be adjusted to

also been involved in enhancing worldwide capacity to rapidly detect and contain emerging health (and bioterror) threats. These programmes increasingly focus on the development of local health capacity to support WHOs revised interna tional health regulations in conjunction with other worldwide and native efforts directed at epidemic preparedness and response. 9Although preparedness and response capabilities for public health emergencies have been difficult to define and measure 10 (a task that CDC continues to address 11 ), reports from CDC and organisations such as the Trust for Americas Health have documented subs tantial improvements. 12,13 These reports show that public health departments are now better equipped to identify health threats rapidly and have improved their abilities to respond effectively to and communicate emergencies. For example, 48 of 50 states (96%) have shown their ability to activate staff and their emergency operations centres. Similarly, the medical response to a public health emergency has been strengthened. 14 Progress in preparedness made in the past decade has benefited routine and large scale or unexpected responses, therefore saving lives and preventing illness and injuries. 15 Annual investments thro ugh CDCs Public Health Emergency Preparedness cooperative agreement with states support crucial everyday systems. These investments support more than 5000 front-line public health workers who routinely assist local and regional responses for incidents 24 h per day 7 days per week, such as outbreaks of foodborne and infectious diseases, and regional environmental disasters, such as wildfires, floods, and ice storms.

US support for Taiwan bad

US support for Taiwan causes military investment, failure of US-Sino cooperation and democratization Kennedy 07 [Andrew Bingham Kennedy= Ph.D. Political Science from Harvard University, China's Perceptions of U.S. Intentions towardTaiwan: How Hostile a Hegemon?, March/April 2007,Asian Survey Vol. 47 No. 2, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2007.47.2.268]hw The results of this study may be troubling, but they should not be surprising. International

politics is notoriously rife with misperceptions, and the U.S. China relationship is particularly prone to misunderstanding. In this case, Chinas pessimistic perceptions have a number of disturbing implications. First, Chinese officials who believe the U.S. secretly opposes unification will be less sanguine about the prospects for peaceful unification with Taiwan, other things being equal. This expectation in turn makes it harderif not impossibleto persuade Taipei to come to the negotiating table, while making coercion appear more necessary. Such a conclusion naturally increases support for investments in military hardware and training while undermining arguments for diplomatic initiatives and compromises. In addition, pessimism about the possibility of persuading Taiwan subverts arguments for democratization on the mainland, insofar as these arguments cite the boost that such reforms would give to cross-strait relations. To be sure, the U.S. cannot dictate political outcomes on Taiwan. At the same time, Chinas influence over the island is rising as cross-strait economic ties continue to grow. It is thus possible that Chinese officials will see non-coercive approaches to Taiwan as increasingly viable in the future, even in the face of American resistance. Even so, Chinese perceptions of American opposition no matter how impotentto closer crossstrait ties are likely to foster skepticism about broader American intentions toward China, hindering cooperation on a variety of issues. Should China ultimately succeed in unifying with Taiwan peacefully, the U.S. has no interest in Chineseanalysts believing that Beijing somehow triumphed over Washingtons implicit resistance. Given the stakes involved, it woul d be imprudent to allow Chinas overly pessimistic perceptions to persist. The

key here is not merely assuring Beijing that the U.S. does not support Taiwanese independence, as both the Clinton and Bush administrations have done. This is an essential part of the task, to be sure, but it is not enough. Instead, American representatives must also stress that the U.S. is prepared to accept unification if it is reached peacefully and consensually.

Large scale terrorist attacks spur economic growth; 2 reasons Powell 2001 - Ben Powell is a Ph.D. student in economics at George Mason UniversityBen Powell, Is Terror Good for the Economy? Ludwig von Mises Institute, December 2001, https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=372 Volume 19, Number 12] In this particular column Krugman discussed the economic impact of the attack on the World Trade Towers. Krugman says, "the terror attack could even do some economic good." How could the death and destruction of September 11 do us some economic good? Krugman offered three assertions. Assertion one: "If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy." Krugman sees people spending money on one particular type of good, but he does not grasp what is unseen. If people were not spending their money on bottled water and canned goods, they would be spending it on something else or saving it. All that has changed are the particular goods that are bought, not the absolute level of economic activity. People buying bottled water and canned goods neither improved nor harmed our economic condition. Assertion two: "The driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending." Krugman is committing the broken-window fallacy on a massive scale. Since the World Trade Towers were small as a percent of our economy, and their destruction will lead to a small amount of increased business investment, and this is

good for our economy, all we need to do to really improve our economy is encourage lots of business investment by this method.

Warming BadGlobal warming is real, the brink is now and will lead to extinction. Hansen et. al 12[James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice, Jan 5, 2012, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf]hw The question then becomes, what is the most appropriate base period to use. We will argue that the appropriate base period is close to our initial choice, 1951 1980. Also

we suggest that the "small" 0.5C global warming of the past three decades already has practical effects, which will become major impacts if projected global warming of 2C or more this century is allowed to occur. The most useful base period, we suggest, is one representative of the climate to which lifeon Earth is adapted. Paleoclimate data show that global temperature has been quite stable for a long period, more than ten thousand years, the

the climate of the most recent few decades must be warmer than prior Holocene levels, given the fact that the major ice sheets in both hemispheres are presently losing mass rapidly and global sea level is rising at a rate of more than 3 m/ millennium, much greaterHolocene period (Fig. 5, (6)). However, (6) argue that than at any time in the past several thousand years. Global temperature in 1951 1980, which is the earliest period with good global coverage of meteorological stations, is ore representative of the Holocene and the climate to which plant and animal life on the planet is adapted. Changes of

Amplification of hot, dry conditions by global warming is expected, based on qualitative considerations. For example, places experiencing an extended period of high atmospheric pressure develop dry conditions, which we would expect to be amplified by global warming and by ubiquitous surface heating due to elevated greenhouse gas amounts. The other extreme of the hydrologic cycle, unusually heavy rainfall and floods, is also expected to be amplified by global warming. The amount of water vapor that the atmosphere holds increases rapidly with atmospheric temperature, and thus a warmer world is expected to have more rainfall occurring in more extreme events. What were "100 year" or "500 year" events are expected to occur more frequently with increased global warming. Rainfall data reveal significant increases of heavy precipitation over much of Northern Hemisphere land and in the tropics ( 3 ) and attribution studies link this intensification of rain fall and floods to human made global warming (global temperature are likely to have their greatest practical impact via effects on the hydrologic cycle. 24 26 ) . Although extreme heat waves and record floods receive most public attention, we wonder if there is not also a more pervasive effect of warming that affects almost everyone. Natural ecosystems are adapted to the stable climate of the Holocene. Climate fluctuations are normal, but the rapid monotonic global trend of the past three decades, from an already warm level, is 12 highly unusual. The

fact that warmer winters have led to an epidemic of pine bark beetles and widespread destruction of forests in Canada and western United States is well known. However, as an anecdotal data piece suggesting the possibility of more widespread effects , consider that several tree species (birch, pin oak, ash, some maple varieties) on theeastern Pennsylvania property of one of us (JH) exhibit signs of stress. Arborists identify proximate causes (borers and other pests, fungus, etc.) in each case, but climate change, including longer summers with more extreme temperature and moisture anomalies, could be one underlying factor. The tree species in this region have existed for millennia; it is implausible that Native Americans had to water the birch trees to keep them alive, as is the case at present during summers with anomalously hot summers. Climate

change of recent decades is also having effects on animals, birds and insects that are already noticeable (17, 27, 28). Although species migrate to stay within climate zones in which they can survive, continued climate shift at the rate of the past three decades is expected to take an enormous toll on planetary life. If global warming approaches 3 C by the end of the century, it is estimated that 21-52% of the species on Earth will be committed to extinction (3). Fortunately, scenarios are also possible in which such large warming is avoided by placing a rising price on carbon emissions that moves the world to a clean energy future fast enough to limit further global warming to several tenths of a degree Celsius ( 29 ). Such a scenario is needed if we are to preserve life as we know it.

Global warming leads to extinctionLaundry list PIK 12

[A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, Turn Down the Heat Why a 4C Warmer World Must be Avoided, November 2012, , http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/12/20/000356161_20121220072749/Rendered/PDF/NonAsciiFileName0.pdf]h w

this report identifies a number of extremely severe risks for vital human support systems. With extremes of temperature, heat waves, rainfall, and drought are projected to increase with warming; risks will be muchAlthough impact projections for a 4C world are still preliminary and it is often difficult to make comparisons across individual assessments,

the most adverse impacts on water availability are likely to occur in association with growing water demand as the world population increases. Some estimates indicate that a 4C warming would significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth. Drier conditions are projected for southern Europe, Africa (except some areas in the northeast), large parts of North America and South America, and southern Australia, among others. Wetter conditions are projected in particular for the northern high latitudesthat is, northern North America,higher in a 4C world compared to a 2C world. In a world rapidly warming toward 4C, northern Europe, and Siberiaand in some monsoon regions. Some regions may experience reduced water stress compared to a case without climate

Subseasonal and subregional changes to the hydrological cycle are associated with severe risks, such as flooding and drought, which may increase significantly even if annual averages change little. With extremes of rainfall and drought projected to increase with warming, these risks are expected to be much higher in a 4C world as compared to the 2C world. In a 2C world: River basins dominated by a monsoon regime, such as the Ganges and Nile, are particularly vulnerable to changes in the seasonality of runoff, which may have large and adverse effects on water availability. Mean annual runoff is projected to decrease bychange. 20 to 40 percent in the Danube, Mississippi, Amazon, and Murray Darling river basins, but increase by roughly 20 percent in both the Nile and the

The risk for disruptions to ecosystems as a result of ecosystem shifts, wildfires, ecosystem transformation, and forest dieback would be significantly higher for 4C warming as compared to reduced amounts. Increasing vulnerability to heat and drought stress will likely lead to increased mortality and species extinction. Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5C to 2C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4C world. In fact, in a 4C world climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4C world, with climate change and high CO 2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coast lineafforded by coral reefs and mangroves). Maintaining adequate food and agricultural output in the face of increasing population and rising levels of income will be a challenge irrespective of human-induced climate change. The IPCC AR4 projected that global food production would increase for local average temperature rise in the range of 1C to 3C, butGanges basins. All these changes approximately double in magnitude in a 4C world. may decrease beyond these temperatures. New results published since 2007, however, are much less optimistic. These results suggest instead a

Large negative effects have been observed at high and extreme temperatures in several regions including India, Africa, the United States, and Australia. For example, significant nonlinear effects have been observed in the United States for local daily temperatures increasing to 29C for corn and 30C for soybeans. These new results and observations indicate a significant risk of high-temperature thresholds being crossed that could substantially undermine food security globally in a 4C world. Compounding these risks is the adverse effect of projected sealevel rise on agriculture in important low-lying delta areas, such as in Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam, and parts of the African coast. Sea-level rise would likely impact many midrapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms. latitude coastal areas and increase seawater penetration into coastal aquifers used for irrigation of coastal plains. Further risks are posed by the

The projected increase in intensity of extreme events in the future would likely have adverse implications for efforts to reduce poverty, particularly in developing countries. Recent projections suggest that the poor are especially sensitive to increases in drought intensity in a 4C world, especially across Africa, South Asia, and other regions. Large-scale extreme events, such as major floods that interfere with food production, could also induce nutritional deficits and the increased incidence of epidemic diseases. Flooding can introduce contaminants and diseases into healthy water supplies and increase the incidence of diarrheal and respiratory illnesses. The effects of climate change on agricultural production may exacerbate under-nutrition and malnutrition in many regionsalready major contributors to child mortality in developing countries. Whilst economic growth is projected to significantly reduce childhood stunting, climate change islikelihood of increased drought in mid-latitude regions and increased flooding at higher latitudes. projected to reverse these gains in a number of regions: substantial increases in stunting due to malnutrition are projected to occur with warming of 2C to 2.5C, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and this is likely to get worse at 4C.

Heat-amplified levels of smog could exacerbate respiratory disorders and heart and blood vessel diseases, while in some regions climate changeinduced increases in concentrations of aeroallergens (pollens,extreme weather events. spores) could amplify rates of allergic respiratory disorders

Warming leads to extinction Lemonick 13 [Michael D. Lemonick=news correspondent, "Climate Change a Bigger Extinction Threat than Asteroids", February 15th 2013,http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-a-bigger-threat-for-extinction-than-asteroid-strike-15625]hw But devastating as that would be, it pales next to the strike that happened 65 million years ago, when a much bigger chunk of space rock, a few miles across, slammed into the sea right off the Yucatan Peninsula in what is now Mexico.

The debris thrown into the atmosphere in the aftermath of that gigantic impact is thought by many to have caused one of the greatest mass extinctions of species in the planets history, by blocking off enough sunlight to chill the planet dramatically. About 70 percent of all living species disappeared during that episode of abrupt climate change. Now many scientists believe another mass extinction is under way this one entirely of our own making. A combination of pollution, habitat destruction and the global warming from greenhouse-gas emissions has already driven the species-extinction rate well above normal, and theres every reason to believe it will continue to skyrocket as the warming starts to overwhelm these other effects during the coming century and beyond. Unlike the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs, this one will result fromrising temperatures, not abrupt cooling, making it tempting to wonder if a well-placed asteroid strike could actually be a good thing. If it hit out in the middle of nowhere, it could generate a pall of atmospheric dust that would cool things for a while, counteracting the heat-trapping effects of greenhouse gases. Scientists are already speculating about doing this sort of thing on purpose (albeit less dramatically) in the process known as solar radiation management, a type of geoengineering.

Warming GoodNo impact to warming and a laundry list of benefits outweighprogress Baliunas 02[Sallie Baliunas= an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics PhD degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University, The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming, May 2002, http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse -science/climatechange/Baliunas.pdf]

No catastrophic humanmade global warming effects can be found in the best measurements of climate. The alleged impacts havent occurred. Hurricanes have not increased in the United States over the last half of the twentieth century; key infectious diseases such as malaria have been eradicated in the United States by the health, living and technological advances made in the last century. 2. Energy-use helped accomplish this last advance and it has also fed vast numbers of people while elevating them from poverty. The longevity, health, welfare and productivity of humans have improved with the use of fossil fuels for energy, and the resulting human wealth has helped produce environmental improvements beneficial to health as well. 3. Carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels is not a toxic pollutant. It is essential to life on earth. Plants, including crops, have flourished owing to the aerial fertilization effect of increased carbon dioxide in the air. Agricultural experts estimate a 10 per cent increase in crop growth in recent decades owing to the heightened concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. The best science offers little justification for the rapid cuts in carbon dioxide mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. Furthermore, the economic consequences come with considerable human and environmental risk, at the cost of no significant climatic improvement in terms of avoided temperature rise by the middle of the twenty-first century, according to the climate simulations. Given the lack of benefits for theThree things can be said about the risk of perilous global warming from human energy use: 1. Kyoto Protocol, what then is guiding its international momentum? One strong factor is the philosophy of the Precautionary Principle in environmental regulation. The Precautionary Principle disallows an action that might harm the environment, until the action is certain to be environmentally harmless. That philosophy is antithetical to science in practice, because it sets an impossible goal in proving harmlessness with certainty. Despite the lack of evidence for catastrophic global warming and its calamities, the temptation to adopt a policy of doing

That portrayal of insurance as a prudent hedge is wrong on two counts, notwithstanding the scientific lack of detection of significant humanmade warming. First, the actuarial notion of insurance is that of a carefully calculated premium paidsomething is promoted as needed insurance against the possible risk to the earth. against a risk known reasonably well in outcome and probability of outcome. In the case of human-made global effects, the risk, premium and outcomes cannot be well-defined. Yet risk

calculations have been attempted by averaging the ensemble of results from various computer simulations, none of which yields reliable results. More important is the second element of the flawed insurance analogy: the notion that buying the Kyoto Protocol is effectiveinsuranceas stated above, the averted temperature resulting from mandated emission cuts will be inconsequential in terms of natural climate variability. The underlying basis for the international negotiations is the Rio Treaty of 1992, which specifically states that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not emissions, be stabilized. In order to stabilize the airs concentra tion of greenhouse gases, emissions would have to be cut some 60 80 per cent. For the next several decades, fossil

fuels are the key to improving the human condition. The scientific facts show that the liberation of fossil fuels from their geologic reservoirs and mankinds use of them provide many economic, health and environmental benefits, whereas the environmental catastrophes forecast from their use by critics have yet to be demonstrated.

total current estimates of hydrocarbon reserves are approximately 2,000 times annual use (47), doubled human release could, over a thousand years, ultimately be 10,000 GT C or 25% of the amount now sequestered in the oceans. If 90% of this 10,000 GT C were absorbed by oceans and other reservoirs, atmospheric levels would approximately double, rising to about 600 parts per

million. (This assumes that new technologies will not supplant the use of hydrocarbons during the next 1,000 years, a pessimistic estimate of technological advance.) One reservoir that would moderate the increase is especially important. Plant life provides a large sink for CO2. Using current knowledge about the increased growth rates of plants and assuming a doubling of CO2 release as compared to current emissions, it has been estimated that atmospheric CO2 levels will rise by only about 300 ppm before leveling off (2). At that level, CO2 absorption by increased Earth biomass is able to absorb about 10 GT C per year.

As atmospheric CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally. Figures 17 to 22 show examples ofexperimentally measured increases in the growth of plants. These examples are representative of a very large research literature on this subject (49-55). Since plant response to CO2 fertilization is nearly linear with respect to CO2 concentration over a range of a few hundred ppm, as seen for example in figures 18 and 22, it is easy to normalize experimental measurements at different levels of CO2 enrichment. This has been done in figure 23 in order to illustrate some CO2 growth enhancements calculated for the atmospheric increase of about 80 ppm that has already taken place, and that expected from a projected total increase of 320 ppm. As figure 17 shows, long-lived (1,000- to 2000-year-old) pine trees have shown a sharp increase in growth rate during the past halfcentury. Figure 18 summarizes the increased growth rates of young pine seedlings at four CO2 levels. Again, the response is remarkable, with an increase of 300 ppm more than tripling the rate of growth.

Figure 19 shows the 30% increase in the forests of the United States that has taken place since 1950. Much of this increase is likely due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has already occurred. In addition, it has been reported that Amazonian rain forests are increasing their vegetation by about 34,000 moles (900 pounds) of carbon per acre per year (57), or about two tons of biomass per acre per year. Figure 20 shows the effect of CO2 fertilization on sour orange trees. During the early years of growth, the bark, limbs, and fine roots of sour orange trees growing in an atmosphere with 700 ppm of CO2 exhibited rates of growth more than 170% greater than those at 400 ppm. As the trees matured, this slowed to about 100%. Meanwhile, orange production was 127% higher for the 700 ppm trees. Trees respond to CO2 fertilization more strongly than do most other plants, but all plants respond to some extent. Figure 21 shows the response of wheat grown under wet conditions and when the wheat was stressed by lack of water. These were open-field experiments. Wheat was grown in the usual way, but the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of circular sections of the fields were increased by means of arrays of computer-controlled equipment that released CO2 into the air to hold the levels as specified. While the results illustrated in figures 17-21 are remarkable, they are typical of those reported in a very large number of studies of the effect of CO2 concentration upon the growth rates of plants (49-55). Figure 22 summarizes 279 similar experiments in which plants of various types were raised under CO2 -enhanced conditions. Plants under stress from less-than-ideal conditions a common occurrence in nature respond more to CO2 fertilization. The selections of species shown in figure 22 were biased toward plantsthat respond less to CO2 fertilization than does the mixture actually covering the Earth, so figure 22 underestimates the effects of global CO2 enhancement. Figure 23 summarizes the wheat, orange tree, and young pine tree enhancements shown in figures 21, 20, and 18 with two atmospheric CO2 increases that which has occurred since 1800 and is believed to be the result of the Industrial Revolution and that which is projected for the next two centuries. The relative growth enhancement of trees by CO2 diminishes with age. Figure 23 shows young

agriculture has already benefited from CO2 fertilization; and benefits in the future will likely be spectacular. Animal life will increase proportionally as shown by studies of 51 terrestrial (63) and 22 aquatic ecosystems (64). Moreover, as shown by a study of 94 terrestrial ecosystems on all continents except Antarctica (65), species richness (biodiversity) is more positively correlated with productivity the total quantity of plant life per acre than with anything else.trees. Clearly, the green revolution in